Frustrating bloody copy-editors
Just want to get something off my chest.
I have just received a hard copy of my forthcoming book The Great Philosophers. I always receive these new books with trepidation, because I know I’ll quickly stumble on something that’ s slipped through the editorial net.
The problem with writing philosophy books for trade publishers is the copy-editing.
Philosophy text is extremely easy to screw up. Miss out a quotation mark, change “a” to “the” etc. and you turn very carefully written philosophical prose into gibberish.
Copy editors make literally hundreds of such little changes (I guess more than 500 in this one). And they don’t flag them up.
In both the DK book and, to a lesser extent, this one, the copy editor, by trying to “improve” my writing, has turned it into embarrassing crap. Most of the crap I spot in the short time I am given to proof read the text (in this case, a week, while on family holiday in foreign country).
Inevitably some of the crap slips through.
In this book, for example, the section on Wittgenstein talks about ‘the way in which “pain” functions’. i.e. the way the word ‘pain’ functions. Talking about a word requires putting it in quotation marks. The copy editor obviously thought there were too many quotations marks, so just randomly took out half of them. Including from headings.
So here’s my new year’s resolution – from now on I am going to insist that copy editors flag every single last bloody change they make. Even cutting a quotation mark. I recommend anyone writing similar books do the same.
(Having said that, I’m otherwise quite pleased with the book)
I’ve had the same problem. Copy editors are illiterate cretins. In one of my books, they removed ALL the quotation marks I’d deliberately put around words to indicate their mis-use. I gave up…The only thing to do is to insist that there is a clause in your contract stipulating that no editorial “corrections” are made except those you yourself insert or approve when proof-reading.
Stephen – I am trying to include a hyperlink in my response to you but cannot figure out how to do it. Can you or anyone spare the time to help? Thanks
I feel your pain. I’m leaving the office in ten minutes for the launch party for my first novel. I’ve been rehearsing a reading today and discovered that the book’s hero, Brother James, now grabs the Mexican villian, Pointing Student, and screams “so psycho, so psycho” at him rather than “soy psycho, soy psycho.”
Hasty generalization.There are good and bad — and everything in between — copy-editors. You apparently are dealing with a poor one. Like any professional we need to deal with, the good ones make life easy, the bad ones make life hell.Same with philosophers. đ
Hi IbrahimI have never figured that out either. I am not sure you can.Terence is right – they are not all crap. In fact some have been very “light touch” (Routledge was excellent and Orion and Headline good too).The DK book was the most stressful. Every page has its illustrations chosen and positioned and the text boxes laid out BEFORE A SINGLE WORD OF THE BOOK HAS BEEN WRITTEN. You must then write the text, one designed page at a time, TO FIT ROUND THE PICTURES. It never does fit exactly, so they cut it, or bulk it out (yes – they actually add text).
To Ibrahim Lawson:Here’s a link that explains links.
Hey Dr Law, I have time to read either your book or Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Why should I read yours?
Is this book being serialised in the Independent today – or is that a different thing?
different thing – bit of a coincidence though.
The punctuation on the Amazon site is a treat. Who knew that the book would include an entry for James Nietzsche?
Good grief, Ken. Where will it all end…?
I’ve just put an order in at my bookstore for this book. Is it possible for a complete list of the errors to be put on this website so that I can make corrections as I read it? Perhaps you already have a scribbled list that could simply be scanned and put up here?
ok i will try and do that…
Great PhilosophersCorrectionsp. 9 there is missing space line between âagainst their own experience.â And âOn the other hand, those who claimâŠ.: 3/4s way down the page. Can one be fitted in?p. 11. 8 lines from bottom. Change âa moral conclusion to drawâ to âthe moral conclusion to draw.âp. 12. In biog box. Line 3. âConfucious for one. Yuk. Could it be âConfucious is one exampleâ.p.13 4 paras from bottom. âcentral claims seems just wrong, doesnât it?â change to âseems mistaken, doesnât it?â*p17. First line change from âare designed to try to showâ to âare designed to showâ*p27. Text box. Para 2 from bottom. Can you please insert âPlato denied there are such forms.â Between ââŠargument that led us to it.â And âIn which caseâŠâP 27. Two âin particularâs in final para. Delete second, so final sentence begins âPlatoâs thinking onâŠ*p. 29. Para 2 should start, Letâs begin by looking at the distinction betweenâŠâ*p. 30 line 2 main text. Change from âare likely to confuse and mislead usâ to âcan only confuse and mislead us.âp. 30. Final line. Would be better if read ââUnlike Plato, Aristotle emphasizes the importance of empirical investigation.âP34. Line 7. Change from âscience would regard as falseâ to âscience has shown is falseâP34. Line 15 from bottom. Change from âsin ought not to be inheritableâŠâ to âSin is not inheritableâŠâ*P38. Last line para 2. Change to âIf it didnât exist, it would not be as great as it could be.â (Instead of ââŠperfect in every way.âP.38. line 1 should end ââŠto accept that there is something wrong with the argument that appears to establish that there is.â (i.e. cut âsuch an islandâ.P42. 3 lines from bottom. Cut âthatâ between âinterpretationsâ and âshouldâ.P55. First line of final para. Insert âtheâ between âchallenge toâ and âviews of manyâ.*P73. Para 3. Last line. Change âconceptsâ to âentitiesâ like so: âLocke calls these inner entities that âŠ.â*p. 82. Line 2. Leibniz is not one of the foremost rational philosophers. He is one of the foremost rationalist philosophers. Change rational to rationalist.P116. Para 3. Change âDrawing on the sea analogy, we might sayâŠâ to âDrawing an analogy, we might sayâŠâP134. Half way down page. Change to read. âMany Westerners hold this belief, but (though few of them would accept this) there is little evidence to support their belief andâŠâ note I have added a comma after âbutâ and changed âthisâ to âtheirâ (to avoid repitition) and also brackets, because confusing.*P141. 2 para from bottom. Change from ââŠinformative, given the natural way of understandingâŠâ to âinformative, given a natural way of understandingâŠ.â*P 142. Last line should read âcaptured and communicated by sentences in whichâŠâ not âstatements in whichâ.P143. Line 2. Cut âButâ so second sentence starts âThe latter is notâŠâP145. Para 2 should start âHusserlâs radical approach⊠not âHusserlâs original approach (which is ambiguous)*P148. Para 1. Line 2. Change from âRussell considered his description theoryâ to âRussell considered his theory of descriptionsâŠâTHIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! If there is not room, I suggest rejig first line so: âOur focus is on Russellâs theory of descriptions and hisâŠâP150 para 2. Line 2. Change from âSayong, âNo one is happyâ isâŠâ to âTo say âNo one is happyâ isâŠâP 155. Para 2 from bottom contains two ârigorousâ I suggest replace second with âcogentâ like soâ ââCommon senseâ deems it to be cogent.âP 155. Final line of page should end. âvia a different proofâ. Cut this so it ends ââŠit will be in some other way.âWITTGENSTEIN CHAPTER. This contains the most serious problems. Most have been caused by quote marks being omitted in a random way. Here goesâŠP157. Line 6 from bottom should read âI use âpainâ as the name ofâŠ.â P158. Header should read âWittgenstein: the meaning of âpainâ is wholly publicâP159. Again, header needs fixing like so: âTwo views about how âpainâ functionsâThe following line should read â⊠between Wittgensteinâs view of how âpain functions andâŠâP160. Line 5. Should read âIf heâs right, the meaning of âpainâ isâŠâ i.e. cut the quote marks round âmeaningâ and insert them round âpainâ.The remainder of the cock ups concern âSâ, which in most, but not all, cases should be in quote marks. There were there in the text, but the editor stripped them all out. Because there are so many, I am pasting the text in below with each occurrence of a missing quote mark highlighted in red. They must all go back, or I look like a fool! THERE ARE FIFTEEN OF THEM, NOTE.But why not? Why couldnât I do the following? I have a certain private inner sensation. I inwardly focus my attention on this sensation, and say to myself, âBy âSâ I mean this â what I am experiencing right now.â In this way, I introduce a name the meaning of which is itself essentially private. Necessarily, no one else can peek inside my mind and discover what I mean by âSâ. Why canât I introduce a meaningful term in this manner? Wittgenstein insists such a definition cannot work. I might be under the illusion that, having engaged in this inner act of definition, I have now given âSâ a meaning. But its meaning is just that â an illusion.Letâs look at the crucial passage from §258. Suppose that, in order to introduce âSââŠâŠI speak, or write the sign down, and at the same time I concentrate my attention on the sensation â and so, as it were, point to it inwardly.- But what is this ceremony for? For that is all it seems to be! A definition surely serves to establish the meaning of a sign. â Well, that is done precisely by the concentration of my attention; for in this way I impress on myself the connexion between the sign and the sensation. â But âI impress it on myselfâ can only mean: this process brings it about that I remember the connexion right in future. But in the present case I have no criterion of correctness. One would like to say: whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we canât talk about ârightnessâ.The argument presented in this passage is notoriously difficult to decipher. Some philosophers are convinced that Wittgenstein here shows that we cannot introduce meaningful signs in this manner. In which case it would seem to follow that âpainâ cannot function in this way either.But other philosophers remain unconvinced. Letâs take a closer look at the argument.No âcriterion of correctnessâWittgenstein insists that after I define âSâ by focussing my attention on my private sensation, I possess no âcriterion of correctnessâ by which I might check whether I apply the term correctly in future. This does seem to be true. If, later on, I have another sensation that I think is S [NO QUOTE MARKS HERE, NOTICE!] again, thereâs nothing available against which I might check whether my memory of how to apply âSâ is correct.There is an obvious contrast here with public terms. If I am unsure about whether I have remembered, say, how to apply the term âpuceâ correctly, I can always go and consult a colour chart. At the very least, I can go and ask others who are more knowledgeable than me about how such terms are applied. But in the case of âSâ, no such independent check is available. All I know is that this seems to me like S again. But is it S again? Thereâs no way to tell.[NOTICE NO QUOTE MARKS ON THE LAST TWO Ss]The final stepAt the end of the quoted passage, Wittgenstein moves from the observation that I possess no criterion of correctness to the conclusion that âwe canât talk about rightnessâ. The idea here seems to be that, because I cannot check whether I apply âSâ correctly, there is no such thing as the ârightâ or âcorrectâ way to apply it. But if there is no such thing as the ârightâ way to apply âSâ, then surely âSâ has no meaning.And so, while I might think I have introduced a meaningful sign, âSâ turns out to be meaningless. Many philosophers consider this final step in the argument dubious, to say the least. Why does it follow that if I canât check whether I apply âSâ correctly that there is no such thing as âcorrectâ? Even if I canât check whether I apply âSâ correctly, perhaps I do apply it correctly, all the same.Is Wittgensteinâs argument cogent? I will leave that for you to decide.[TEXT BOX] The beetle in the boxLater in the Philosophical Investigations, (Book 1 §293)Wittgenstein offers an argument designed to show that, whether or not I have succeeded in giving âSâ a meaning, the word âpainâ certainly does not function in the way âSâ is intended to. Here is what Wittgenstein says:]]BACK TO REMAINING CORRECTIONS:P 163. Halfway down page. âinterpretâ is wrong â makes no sense. Should be âacquireâ like soâ âexplaining how we acquire knowledge of the world.âP166, 4 paras from bottom starts âWhen we observe someone with a mind, weâŠâ change to âWhen we observe others, weâŠâ. Also cut quote marks from round âbehind the scencesâ. At end of same para.P168. 4 para from bottom last line. Should read: âThe fact that zombies are conceivable and involve no such contradiction seems straightforwardlyâŠâ i.e. I have added an âandâ after âconceivableâ, and removed âandâ from between âcontradictionâ and âseemsâ.P177. Para 4. Repeats âover which she has no controlâ. I suggest replace so it reads âShe also treats her hand as if it were a mere disconnected âthingâ The truth isâŠâ.The waiter case. First line should read âThe waiter plays his role in an exaggerated, clichĂ©d way, balancing his tray and pouring drinks as if he were merely a puppet playing he role of a waiter.âPara 2 from bottom final line insert âtheâ like so âHe pretends that the choice ofâŠâP 180. Para beginning âArendt thought that..â has two âsimplyâs. Better to delete second so it reads ââŠbut carried out his ordersâŠâ*P188. Last line of text box. Should read âHence many philosophers have been drawnâŠâ not âareâ.P194. Near bottom âIn Russellâs analysisâ repeats. Better replace second so it reads. According to Russell, the sentence asserts that there is exactlyâŠ.â*P198. Para 2 from bottom. Should read ââŠthis slight risk does not entail that you are notâŠâ not âsayâ.I would change final line of page to read âBut she is surely correct that, to show that abortion is immoral, it is not enough simply to show that a foetus is a person.â*P199. Kripke attacks the description theory, so would be better if it said âAgainst the description theory of names.â Sounds like he is for it!P201. Final line should read âsynonymous with any of those descriptions.â i.e. âofâ not âoneâ.*P 205. Line 2 contains big error. âwhere we doâ is in wrong place. It should read ââŠdraw the boundary between those who deserve our full moral concern and those who do not where we do â between our species and the rest.â
As Ron Weasley would say, “Bloody Nora!”.Thank you very much for doing this. When my copy of the book arrives in April (I’m in Oz) I will go through and make all these changes, hopefully so they not noticeably distracting, and then start reading from the front cover.