Proof Reading

and now some from across the pond…

I’m a graphic designer who has been fortunate enough to indulge his passion for aviation through various outlets including publication. Many, many a page has passed under my eye/mouse and across my screen.

I whole-heartedly agree that a) those writing/contibuting should at least put the necessary background reseach into their work, and b) that the publisher should also be responsible (through their editors) for correct content. It is also worthwhile to point out that some would point to excessive editing as leading to infringement on freedom of speech. Fortunately, when dealing with historic, (obviously well-documented background subjects) there is the ability to document and publish in a fairly unfettered manner – so long as the FACTs are adhered to.

My point does not deal with the historical facts of a subject, more the grammatical. While those in the UK have primarily only the Queen’s English to deal with, please pause for a moment and put yourselves in my shoes. I am in Canada… I work in English (and French, Spanish, German, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and sometimes Russian). Here we have the strange situation of reading, writing and speaking a language which we share with our neighbours, but its NOT the same language (nor is it really the ‘Queen’s English’). Canadian English is based on the ‘Queen’s English’ but has been infiltrated by ‘l’autre langue’ and tortured by linguistic laziness through spell-check.

So, that said, while working through 300 to 700 pages of a book, I proof-read – on-screen and in hard copy – not because it’s my job, but because I care about what is in that book (and we still spell favour, harbour and neighbour with a ‘u’).

The idea that someone, other than the writer and the reader, actually cares about what is being printed is unfortunately Quixotic… the desktop computer has laid waste to the typesetters and editors of the world… we (well, not us) will all live on a diet of Wikimygooglegeohistory and MSenglish

Cheers!… i need a beer after that

James

This is a subject very close to my heart. I run a design business producing all manner of publications including magazines and brochures. I am the first to admit that I am guilty of letting more than my share of typos, spelling errors and plain old mistakes through over the years. However, I have accepted the consequences, and where possible, make system changes to prevent future disasters.

However, I am always dismayed when my clients will not get professional third-party proof reading. The reason inevitably is cost. In my opinion, the inevitable mistakes (and they are inevitable) diminish the work and value of the publications.

Does it affect advertisng buyers and subscribers. Yes. I buy a popular Australian magazine, currently with a major ‘Spitfire at 70’ feature. While I can’t quibble with the factual accuracy, any sort of proof reader or sub-editor would catch the litany of disasters in this current issue. One spread with numbered captions, actually omits a whole caption. Some of the text also abandons all known grammatical law. I’m probably not representative of the mag’s market, but it diminishes what is otherwise a ‘good read’.

I know how this happens, and it’s usually deadlines. Big documents are a work in progress right up until they hit the press, but consumers deserve better, and a dedication to reporting history needs a commitment to accuracy.

Rant over- hope this is taken in the spirit in which it was written.

Ref #13. It is a common experience that those who were “there” or have “in depth” knowledge of an event are usually pretty mortified at the version of events packaged by authors or producers for public consumption. So called TV “documentaries” for example- or even news reports.

JDK Have you worked in publishing?
I will not answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate me. 🙂
(However, I’ve answered off-line JDK)

Is it a sign of a failing education system when so many spelling mistakes arise or have people become so reliant on spellcheckers that the need to actually know how to spell is unimportant. I have a drawing on my desk on which the word ‘receive’ is spelt ‘recieve’ in 6 different text boxes, no doubt more will be found in the rest of the documentation.

An excellent post, however,

…so many (but not all) of the errors could be put down to careless typesetting.

A professional typesetter introducing the quoted number of errors wouldn’t be with the company (back then) for long. Far more likely to be errors by the author (that’s not they don’t know their subject, they just end up seeing what should be there, not what is there) and compounded by the editor not doing a good enough job proofing.
Cheers!

Good oh!

Let’s just play a bit of how full’s your glass… 😉

There are fewer and fewer historical aviation authors now who actually hail for a relevant aeronautical background, whether it be the aircraft industry, military or civil aviation.

Perhaps. On the other hand it is unarguable that there is more published today on aviation by more people in more countries and formats and easily accessible than ever before. “You’ve never had it so good.” Then there’s the internet. Full of junk, and full of gems. Trouble is you don’t have an editor between you and it. Would you rather go without?

Sure some of th books published and certaily lots of the magazines are dross, and lots badly edited. But it’s the way it is. We can moan about it, but I’d rather have it, flawed, than not at all. No-one’s going to pay for improvement; not the reader, author, editor or publisher, so, as they say, deal.

Or go back to (say) the 1960s and you’ll find a howling desert of minimal aviation produced by a very few people who would (with the best of intentions) repeat a number of old errors, and ‘obscure’ aircraft (i.e. not-a-Spitfire-or-Mustang) books were very rare. The grammar was great the content excellent by the standards of the day. But you’d never be able to publish a book of that quality (in every sense) now.

Nowadays you have a choice; plus instant online reviews and comment to help that choice. Colour printing, to a high resolution, and, frankly, less anal retentive dictatorial behaviour by senior staff whose knowledge of English grammar and spelling stopped in 1936.

I’d absolutely agree that the average standard of proofing has massively declined. However there are a lot of people who are trying really really hard to produce books on previously untouched subjects, or dig deeper than before into familiar stories.

Thus a collection of photos, outline drawings and often imaginative artistic graphics cobbled together with second-hand information from others of the same ilk, company PR departments and suchlike, is now passed off as “authoritative”, despite the lack of practical experience or relevant credentials of the perpetrators.

I think I know some of the magazines you are referring to. Perhaps you should change your reading material, or apply that awareness when reading it. I don’t read the Sun. Were I to do so, I would be VERY aware of their agenda, and budget for that in my reading. But I don’t expect the Sun to be anything other than it is.

All history and politics is (or) are partial. Magazine production is a always a pressurised and transient environment.

My initial comments were aimed at the mass production line of material coming out of our of so-called specialist magazines where the editorial staff used, at one stage,to have a fair understanding of their subject matter.

And they went bust. Or got sold. Or the staff changed. They might have known the subject, but they couldn’t cut it in today’s market. It’s not nice but it’s true. Compare the publishing schedule of Air Enthusiast when it was first produced, and the same today. Now cast an eye over the competition – not just other magazines, but books.

Providing articles for such publications is a common start point for authors and should surely provide a catalyst for them to learn the basics of responsible writing.

Are you going to pay for that? The publisher doesn’t and the author has a lot of their own costs to bear.

…even adherence to the basic rules of the english language often being ignored.

Ah. May I offer you the Cardinal?

If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him. – Cardinal de Richelieu

No-one’s English is perfect. People achieve different standards of error, and some of us (me included) find some of them below acceptable.

Incidentally, you might like to note that ‘English’ when referring to the language takes a capital letter. (Hart’s Rules for Compositors and Readers at the Oxford University Press, and Butcher’s Copy Editing. (CUP) Bryson’s Penguin Dictionary for Writers & Editors skips this one.) Sorry. But I’m just demonstrating it’s easier to snipe than it is to write. What a world it would be if we were all just critics…

I’m still looking for the authoritative, inscribed, set of real rules for English as she is Writ, and d’you know, I’ve yet to find them? [My parents were teachers, both majoring at times with English, I’m a trained proof-reader, writer and editor, and my grandfather was an authoritative writer, hot metal printer, compositor, editor and typesetter. I’m most aware of my ignorance, not my expertise.]

I ask anybody who has had specific first hand knowledge about any subject to consider what their reaction was when considering the accuracy of publications or media productions from outside “experts” on their home topic.

I don’t understand your question.

Have you worked in publishing?

Regards,

Fair point Melvyn Hiscock and 25deg South. The late Ronnie Harker, though did hail from a relevent aeronautical background, with 40-odd years of service to Rolls-Royce as an engineer, test pilot and senior company rep.
Maybe someone at his publishers (Oxford Illustrated Press) was in awe of him – I just don’t know. Remember the book was published in 1976, before the era of word processors, so many (but not all) of the errors could be put down to careless typesetting.
The typesetting and desk-top publishing revolution of the last 20 or so years has made it a lot easier and more economical to produce books (and newspapers and magazines), but the primary responsibility for quality control has been pushed firmly up the line to the writer – which is the point that the two last contributors have been making, if I understand them rightly.
Nobody’s perfect, and in an ideal world author and proof-reader should be pulling together in the interests of making the end product as good as it possibly can be. This depends, though, on a similar level of knowledge from both parties.
If there is an imbalance, then things can go badly wrong. If a writer will not accept valid questions (Are you sure this is an An-24 and not an An-26? Of course I do. How dare you ask!! (Slipped that one in ‘cos an An-24 flew over the house yesterday!)) then the whole thing breaks down, alas.

William

Check out the date that Ken Ellis signed the July Flypast sticky.

😀

And him an ex-schoolteacher as well IIRC !!!!:)

Check out the date that Ken Ellis signed the July Flypast sticky.

😀

I agree with Melvyn Hiscock. There are fewer and fewer historical aviation authors now who actually hail for a relevant aeronautical background, whether it be the aircraft industry, military or civil aviation.
Thus a collection of photos, outline drawings and often imaginative artistic graphics cobbled together with second-hand information from others of the same ilk, company PR departments and suchlike, is now passed off as “authoritative”, despite the lack of practical experience or relevant credentials of the perpetrators.
My initial comments were aimed at the mass production line of material coming out of our of so-called specialist magazines where the editorial staff used, at one stage,to have a fair understanding of their subject matter. Providing articles for such publications is a common start point for authors and should surely provide a catalyst for them to learn the basics of responsible writing. Some accountability for accuracy, style and content used to be accepted by editorial staff in this context.This no longer appears to be the case, with even adherence to the basic rules of the english language often being ignored.
I ask anybody who has had specific first hand knowledge about any subject to consider what their reaction was when considering the accuracy of publications or media productions from outside “experts” on their home topic.

It brings out the anorak in me – yet a publisher owes a duty to both author and book-buyer to get the damn thing right first time. Bit like the aviation business, really.

William

Explain why it is the publisher’s sole responsibility to proof read? You say they owe the author a duty but that should be the other way round. The publisher is investing a large sum of money to bring that book to print and it is the author’s responsibility to ensure they know what the hell they are talking about before embarking on the book.

Has it also not occurred to anyone that the self same people that write some of these howlers in books are the very ones that offer proof reading services to publishers?

By putting their name on a manuscript the author is stating they are an authority on the subject. It is up to them to check their facts. Publishers do try (heaven knows I found loads of howlers when I worked at one) but it is the author that is reponsible for both the text AND the captions.

I’ve just been revisting some old threads and came across this one.
I’ve also been reading the copy of Ronnie Harker’s book, Rolls-Royce from the Wings, that I found in a car boot sale not long ago.
It’s a valuable memoir of a career with RR, but would have been so much better if the publishers has employed an aeronautically literate proof-reader.
I’ve lost count of the trivial errors, but they literally come at the rate of about one a page. Photographs wrongly captioned (Spitfire I described as a V), names mis-spelt (‘John Fozzard’ of Harrier fame) and simple errors of fact (Warwick listed as a Vulture application, yet no mention of the Blackburn B20) and so on.
It brings out the anorak in me – yet a publisher owes a duty to both author and book-buyer to get the damn thing right first time. Bit like the aviation business, really.

William

Whilst there is truth in that, there are often “experts” out there who are very good with the facts and figures, but who find it quite a difficult process to produce glossy articles for use in magazines. As a result those with the “gift of the gab” tend to get asked to write something on a subject they know very little on, and the subject specialists seldom get consulted to ensure what they are churning out is in any way accurate. Ironically that information then gets feted as being “gospel” and the author becomes the “expert in his field”.

Very true.

Some of us try to learn about the subject too, but personally, I am lucky in writing about what I want rather than having to fill a mag as a full time employee, so generally I can take as long as I like, and thus research as much as I wish, before producing.

However ‘bad’ it is, it’s ‘better’ than blank pages…

Hence the need to ‘churn’. Also, Lee, I’m also afraid that if I had a penny for every real expert who missed the deadline or failed to provide publishable material, I’d have, ~um~ 62 & 1/2 p 😀

It’s a sad fact that there does seem to be a “clique” of correspondents that are always used by magazines and that good material – especially photographic – is often turned away from publication in favour of someone coming along with both words and pictures, regardless of whether the image quality is less than those submitted by themselves.

There’s no clique. There’s reliable regulars.

Adequate stuff, as promised, on time, will always beat the great pic late, or inadequately supported.

You’ve answered your own question really, in the second part. Give me words & pics, publishable, every time over great pic I have to do the legwork on.

Sadly there’s a lot of people able to take an adequate picture – frankly everybody is knee deep in photogs for ‘average’ shots on public events. If you want to get published, provide above average photo scoops, which is easier than you might think, as a rule. An ability to provide an appropriate text with it bumps you well up the listings of ‘possible use’ from unlikely to be used. Get to know your Ed helps a lot.

And it’s fair to say that most mags are desperate for writers who can take a picture, rather than photographers who don’t spend enough effort trying to write. That corner’s a bearpit, and I wouldn’t try and take the raw meat from the photo boys’ corner…

Or to put it another way, you’ll need to be very good and well connected to get published as a photographer; but it’s a lot easier as a writer. But write what they want – not what you want, and not what you think they need.

Just some thoughts…

(NB: This is a general view by someone who has worked for several magazines over the years; and is not focussed on or specific to Flypast, who I’ve not worked for but have been published by…)

JDK and Lee Howard.
I was sounding off a bit! Looking at the rest of the Magazine I see that David Willis had written several articles and I am not attacking him as an individual. He has put in a lot of work, for which if he honestly calculates his overall hourly return for his efforts he will probably find himself getting a miserly rate. One cannot but wholeheartedly agree with your comments about the lousy financial return traditionally involved in aviation feature writing ( and authoring in general). I visited “Fly Past”‘s offices in the early days on invitation and the lean and mean approach was an eye opener compared to others, some of which have now been taken over by Key Press. That is the way in business and I realise that the publishing team will always be working very hard to meet the deadline treadmill.
Nevertheless, editors do have a responsibility to fulfil and it is evident that all of Mr. Willis’s articles have just not been scanned properly for this issue- spellchecker howlers abound, as well as elementary grammatical errors in addition to the repeated basic factual error that I highlighted. I know from experience that writing under time pressure almost inevitably generates silly “glitches” by authors, however it is the duty of sub-editors to root these out.
By coincidence a subscription renewal slip arrived with this issue. I’m thinking about it.

Some general observations from an author, editor & publisher:

Finally, it’s inevitable that the willing author is eventually sucked into areas of lesser expertise by virtue of the need for ‘fresh’ articles, while the ‘experts’ sit on the sidelines safely criticising but never producing.

There’s always a demand for more authors, aviation writing doesn’t pay well enough to retain more of those with a good grasp of English, sadly. Still… Don’t beat ’em, join ’em. 😉

Whilst there is truth in that, there are often “experts” out there who are very good with the facts and figures, but who find it quite a difficult process to produce glossy articles for use in magazines. As a result those with the “gift of the gab” tend to get asked to write something on a subject they know very little on, and the subject specialists seldom get consulted to ensure what they are churning out is in any way accurate. Ironically that information then gets feted as being “gospel” and the author becomes the “expert in his field”.

It’s a sad fact that there does seem to be a “clique” of correspondents that are always used by magazines, and that good material – especially photographic – is often turned away from publication in favour of someone coming along with both words and pictures, regardless of whether the image quality is less than those submitted by themselves.

Some general observations from an author, editor & publisher:

Sadly no-one (public or editors) see it was worthwhile to pay for proper proof reading.

The excuse is advanced that ‘most people won’t notice’ :rolleyes: and while that’s sadly too often true, it’s also true, as Lee says, that once into print mistakes acquire a living dead ability to keep haunting us for ever.

Producing a regular journal is a cyclic grind that only those of us that have undertaken it can really appreciate – but that’s an excuse, not a good reason.

Finally, it’s inevitable that the willing author is eventually sucked into areas of lesser expertise by virtue of the need for ‘fresh’ articles, while the ‘experts’ sit on the sidelines safely criticising but never producing.

There’s always a demand for more authors, aviation writing doesn’t pay well enough to retain more of those with a good grasp of English, sadly. Still… Don’t beat ’em, join ’em. 😉

Not seen it yet – who is the author?

EDIT: Just seen it listed as David Willis. Not a name I’m familiar with.

Oh well, it’s in print now, so it MUST be true! 😉