65 replies to this topic

[Simon]

Fair points, all.

 

However, I feel I shouldn't Have to learn to live with it.  I am aware there is a thing called human error, but I am also aware there is a thing called professionalism.  One takes their choices.

[MarkA]

Fair points, all.

However, I feel I shouldn't Have to learn to live with it. I am aware there is a thing called human error, but I am also aware there is a thing called professionalism. One takes their choices.

Be careful about condemning. I know these two Authors were up against the wire to get this published. I have read the whole thing and mistakes whether grammatical or factual are very slight. I have seen and read far worse. No published book is perfect, it is impossible and l work in the industry. It is usually the fault of third party proof readers because as the author or in my case the designer sometimes you are too close to see and generally in this day and age everything is wanted yesterday.

[Dustin]

Actually I've come to notice a great many errors even in front page newspaper articles in recent years. What spell-check helped to extinguish with typos has multiplied in wrong words, grammatical errors, wrong punctuation and so on. It's by no means a sign of professionality or lack thereof any more.

[MarkA]

The trouble is most proof reading is done off a computer screen for speed and to save paper. I have been told myself don't bother to print it out. It is a classic mistake because one automatically scan reads off a screen and so your brain corrects it. All thorough proof reading should be done from a hard copy. The mistakes then jump out at you.

Edited by MarkA, 31 December 2015 - 09:12 PM.

[Dustin]

Just so.

[AMC Hornet]

It's always worked that way for me.

 

Better to waste one galley's worth of paper than to send the whole first printing out looking like it was edited by a monkey.

 

The really annoying part is, most young readers won't notice the questionable punctuation or spellchecking (e.g.: 'flare' for 'flair') because their own literacy isn't - and probably never will be - up to par. "Good enough" has become the best you can expect.

[Dustin]

Well, in defence of the younger folk it has to be said it works both ways, they see the misspelling in print and of course believe that's what it must look like, it's printed there. And the growing percentage of reading done from screens doesn't help the case. I must confess here that I'm probably the last person to bemoan this. In order to grasp the finer points of English punctuation I lost the ability to put proper commas in my own language; I will soon have to do something about it before the fault becomes too obvious and shaming....

[Simon]

MarkA, be sure to know I am not condemning the authors.  I am loosely aware of the process and in this case, the proof readers are at fault.  I believe these are usually covered off by the publishers as opposed to the authors.

 

But whoever is to blame, I return to the initial comment - professionalism.  Is there any other product one would buy where we would be as forgiving?

 

'This car's upholstery has fallen off.  But that's ok because that human involved was probably having a bad day.' ??

 

Unlikely.  I just feel we have a right to a polished product and in this case, perhaps the authors were poorly served.

[SecretAgentFan]

Now, now.  This magnificent book may have the odd spelling error - but don´t worry, it is not as if every page were riddled with them.

 

I´d say: wait for the second edition if you are so obsessed with perfection (good luck buying any book then, by the way...).  But film books rarely get second editions since the market is so small.

[Grard Bond]

SectetAgentFan is absolutely right ofcourse!

Also very strange that you have such a strong verdict about a book you never read yourself!

A book without any errors just doesn't exit. More than 700 pages will ofcourse have some spelling errors, but it also will give you so much pleasure to read all about the interesting stories and information from the Bond movies.

[Simon]

Not sure if the second line in the above was directed at SAF, or myself.

 

Either way, I am aware I get disgruntled at spelling errors.  Perhaps more so than other people.  But for me, and maybe Only me, this does and would detract.  Full stop.

 

I am sure the content is otherwise wholesome and nutritious.

[Grard Bond]

It was directed to you, I'm afraid.

What I wanted to say is (and that's the last of it) all the books you have bought in your life, have probably errors and every book you will buy in the future have them.

So does this mean you will never buy a book? You will miss so many great and exellent work.

Newspapers are even worse, they are full of it.

Ofcourse I respect your opinion, but I think it's a pity you will not reading it, because it's such an amusing and exellent book.

Edited by Grard Bond, 03 January 2016 - 02:14 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

I'm up to LALD now, and although I regret opening this can of worms about editing, I still can't see how they could have missed every sentence that ended with 'Broccoli' read '...Broccoli. Broccoli.'

 

And it's IVAR Bryce, not Ivor.

[Simon]

FFS!

 

I was going to graciously leave this after Grard's final point, but that sounds to be just bloody hopeless.  There is 'human error', and then there is an entire job just not being undertaken.

 

This is not a case of the odd (human) error going un-noticed.  No one has even opened this book for proof reading.  This is unforgivable.

 

Even less impressed now.  Sorry Grard, there is no chance of my purchasing this.

[Surrie]

Apart from the spelling and grammatical errors (which are, admittedly, more frequent than most publications) the content is good. 

[SecretAgentFan]

FFS!

 

I was going to graciously leave this after Grard's final point, but that sounds to be just bloody hopeless.  There is 'human error', and then there is an entire job just not being undertaken.

 

This is not a case of the odd (human) error going un-noticed.  No one has even opened this book for proof reading.  This is unforgivable.

 

Even less impressed now.  Sorry Grard, there is no chance of my purchasing this.

 

I´ll buy two then.

[Simon]

Thereby advocating and promoting shoddiness...

[Dustin]

Incidentally, I'm just on the finish line (60 pages or so left) of Stephen King's MR MERCEDES. Just to illustrate what we are talking about when we are talking about professionalism as a concept in our day, which we apparently do here. I've got Hodder & Stoughton's hardcover first edition of June 2014. On the dust jacket you find one protagonist's name spelled as "Brady Hartfied" (backside) and "Brady Hartfield" (front flap). The protagonist's actual name is Hartsfield in the book (though a couple of times it's misspelled there, too). In the text appear a number of little errors, typical auto-correct stuff like "not" when it should have read "nor" and the like.

I'm pretty sure King gave his book a thorough once over, as well as probably did his secretary, his wife and whoever is working at the Hodder end on King's books nowadays. This company and this writer are as professional as they come - and yet...

On the other hand I recently finished a book with near-faultless spelling but so many factual errors and utter misconceptions I'm still angry at the author. Given the choice I take the sound book with the odd misspelling over the faultless nonsense any day.

[AMC Hornet]

Fair enough.

 

As an English teacher I can't help but notice even the less noticeable mistakes, and I find that the students who need the most help are the ones who ask for it the least.

[Dustin]

It is mainly a question of what you practice yourself, not just in your job but in your general use of language. Look at it like this, 400 years ago most of the public used language seldom or not at all in writing, they were illiterates or functional illiterates. Whatever was written, what was printed was so important and expensive that it automatically had official status. That's where our standards stem from, a time where you made sure your writing was correct.

Today, a much greater percentage of the public uses language in writing, it's become so ubiquitous as to make it damn tough for illiterates not just to work but take part in society at all. Just look here, all of the Internet is based on at least a basic level of literacy. If you can't write and read you stand outside a whole world - not just of information but of a new form of largely borderless society.

At the same time this is probably the place where most people practice writing the most in their entire lives - but it's practically without regulations. Any form of writing will do, smilies, slang, newspeak, 'simple english' - you just name it, whatever you can think of you can find people using, provided it gets the information across.

So we have a tradition of roughly 700 years of printing and an ever more complex and definite set of rules for the standard/high/King's/Queen's language colliding with the fact that by and far the most use this language finds nowadays in a completely unrestricted environment. And most people would either not notice or not care what we still find irking or unacceptable.

[AMC Hornet]

"A dangling preposition is something up with which I will put."

(Winston Churchill, with tongue firmly in cheek)

 

Language evolves, old rules fall by the wayside - but we have to draw the line somewhere before we devolve into a society of semi-literates who just don't give a damn about linguistic consistency.

 

It's a losing battle, I know - but I'm keeping my finger in the dike, setting a better example and calling out lazy writing and editing when I see it (which is constantly).

[Simon]

I think we are already happily down the road of discussing the philosophy of language usage and, striding manfully forth once again, I must concur with AMC above.

 

There are linguistic standards, I understand the standards evolve but whether it (d)evolves into a sentence construction entirely of smilies, so long as this is an accepted norm and the correct smilie is used at the correct time, then I will grudgingly evolve with it.  Ish.

 

For me, this is a standard I would wish to uphold.  Equally, and contrastingly, I am sure I have many standards which could do with tarting up.  I have a passing interest in word usage, meanings and derivations.  Which is to say, I read the odd book about these subjects, but I don't teach it.

 

It is one of the reasons I come to this board as opposed to others.  Its forum showcases a good representation of the language and to this end, I prefer reading here - certainly as opposed to the MI6 website whose three paragraph stories are rammed to the rafters with typos and junk.

 

Bearing in mind the majority of what we discuss here, we don't look at a film and say 'the intentions were great but while the editing was shite, it's still worth your £10 cinema admission followed closely by the £10 DVD purchase price.'  One will generally attack irrespective of the intentions.  And rightly so.  A world doesn't evolve through accepting third best.

 

So, all I maintain I am doing is applying the same rules across the range of products.

[AMC Hornet]

Oh dear.

 

"Oliver Tobias, a handsome, emerging British leading man, famous for the soft-core porn film The Stud (1978), in which he appeared opposite John Collins, entered the fray...." (p. 341)

 

Only one letter off, but it changes the entire connotation of just what kind of soft-core porn film this was.

 

And on the next page, Major Smythe is described as having killed Franz Oberhauser in Austria.

 

WHY WASN'T I CONSULTED?!

[Dustin]

"A dangling preposition is something up with which I will put."
(Winston Churchill, with tongue firmly in cheek)

Language evolves, old rules fall by the wayside - but we have to draw the line somewhere before we devolve into a society of semi-literates who just don't give a damn about linguistic consistency.

It's a losing battle, I know - but I'm keeping my finger in the dike, setting a better example and calling out lazy writing and editing when I see it (which is constantly).

I think we are already happily down the road of discussing the philosophy of language usage and, striding manfully forth once again, I must concur with AMC above.

There are linguistic standards, I understand the standards evolve but whether it (d)evolves into a sentence construction entirely of smilies, so long as this is an accepted norm and the correct smilie is used at the correct time, then I will grudgingly evolve with it. Ish.

For me, this is a standard I would wish to uphold. Equally, and contrastingly, I am sure I have many standards which could do with tarting up. I have a passing interest in word usage, meanings and derivations. Which is to say, I read the odd book about these subjects, but I don't teach it.

It is one of the reasons I come to this board as opposed to others. Its forum showcases a good representation of the language and to this end, I prefer reading here - certainly as opposed to the MI6 website whose three paragraph stories are rammed to the rafters with typos and junk.

Bearing in mind the majority of what we discuss here, we don't look at a film and say 'the intentions were great but while the editing was shite, it's still worth your £10 cinema admission followed closely by the £10 DVD purchase price.' One will generally attack irrespective of the intentions. And rightly so. A world doesn't evolve through accepting third best.

So, all I maintain I am doing is applying the same rules across the range of products.

I don't think it's necessarily a losing battle, there might very well be a universally accepted etiquette of smiley usage and R U may one day become the Oxford standard of net lingo while r u may forever be Webster's. Impossible to say. What I suspect will come our way in the not-too-distant future are homophones turning to homonyms and the like. It is of course what always happened - language evolving - but it never did this fast or on such global scale. Part of it is due to the fact we can now write almost as fast as we speak - and soon we may actually really just speak and Siri does the writing part for us - whereas in my youth when you typed something you had to have a pretty good idea what the sentence would look like and how your stuff was spelled. Because nobody really wanted to use Tipp-Ex.

Also, there is the amazing fact never in the history of mankind did so many individuals converse with each other, day by day, every hour for nearly a whole generation now. This is like an incubator for the whole linguistic evolution; what happened over centuries previously now can unfold within a few years. It might well be we don't even notice many of the more scurrilous abnormities, simply because they don't cut it against Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' law.

[AMC Hornet]

 

Language evolves, old rules fall by the wayside - but we have to draw the line somewhere before we devolve into a society of semi-literates who just don't give a damn about linguistic consistency.

What I suspect will come our way in the not-too-distant future are homophones turning to homonyms and the like.

 

So which will become standard usage - to, two or too? Their, there or they're?

 

We've already seen 'than' loose out to 'then' (and yes, 'loose' was deliberate).

 

Even when one form does ultimately dominate, some will still find inventive ways of getting it wrong.

[Tiin007]

 

 

Language evolves, old rules fall by the wayside - but we have to draw the line somewhere before we devolve into a society of semi-literates who just don't give a damn about linguistic consistency.

What I suspect will come our way in the not-too-distant future are homophones turning to homonyms and the like.

 

So which will become standard usage - to, two or too? Their, there or their?

 

We've already seen 'than' loose out to 'then' (and yes, 'loose' was deliberate).

 

Even when one form does ultimately dominate, some will still find inventive ways of getting it wrong.

 

 

The sentences which irritate me most on fan forums read like this: "Connery should of stopped after You Only Live Twice."

 

I'm not sure why other linguistic errors don't bother me so much, yet this one gets my blood boiling every time. 

[AMC Hornet]

Blame phonics.

 

Children have been encouraged to write how they speak, which also means how they hear.

 

As a result they can't compose a decent paragraph to save their lives - not even after reading the entire Harry Potter series.

 

 

Back to SKOH: I can forgive the occasional typo, but the authors go on to declare that NSNA was released Wednesday, December 14,1983. Somehow, that didn't stop me from first seeing it on Friday, October 6th. I'm pretty sure Canada didn't get a test run two months early.

 

Still, SKOH was a mammoth undertaking, the likes of which I am ill prepared to match.

[Jim]

Language evolves, old rules fall by the wayside - but we have to draw the line somewhere before we devolve into a society of semi-literates who just don't give a damn about linguistic consistency.

What I suspect will come our way in the not-too-distant future are homophones turning to homonyms and the like.

So which will become standard usage - to, two or too? Their, there or their?

We've already seen 'than' loose out to 'then' (and yes, 'loose' was deliberate).

Even when one form does ultimately dominate, some will still find inventive ways of getting it wrong.

The sentences which irritate me most on fan forums read like this: "Connery should of stopped after You Only Live Twice."

I'm not sure why other linguistic errors don't bother me so much, yet this one gets my blood boiling every time.

I understand the original title of the book was to have been Some Kind Have Hero. They spotted that one.

Typos aside, is it any good? I received it as a present from one of the offspring but haven't embarked upon it yet. By "good", I mean is there anything new to learn or is it the rushed, under-edited cobbling together of well-worn facts (where accurate) and anecdotes that this thread seems to be suggesting?

[Simon]

14 December 1983 was the UK release date.

 

I can't comment on other countries' release dates.

 

The teaser poster has this date front and centre. Well, actually the 15th for general release but as I don't have the premiere brochure to hand, I don't know if hairs are being split to encompass the date of the 14th.

[AMC Hornet]

Okay, I've confirmed that elsewhere, but that is just bizarre.

 

As to Jim's question, SKOH is worth reading, and the less concerned you are about presentation the more you'll enjoy it.