Skip to main content

Do you copy, Houston?

The next book, Ecologic is now in the copy editing phase. Some poor soul has gone through the whole thing in exquisite detail, checking for my manifold grammatical slips, and Just a Minute problems (repetition, deviation or hesitation).

Different publishers play the copy editing game subtly differently. Some just send any queries that the copy editor has ('did you really mean to say this???') without revealing just what is being done to the text, others give you the whole manuscript marked up along with the editor's detailed changes. The latter is the approach taken by Transworld, the publishers of Ecologic and I am currently working through this as quickly as I can, because (to be honest) it's a mind-numbing task.

It's very rare that I change any simple edits, and even most of the queries from the copy editor make total sense, and I leave them as they are. But occasionally something will need a tweak. For example (s)he picked up on my use of the term 'speech radio' saying 'odd phrase - unless it's music all radio is speech.' I think this reflects the rather cloistered world that copy editors live in. (I imagine publishers keep them in a cupboard, rather like the bank managers in a very old TV ad I seem to remember.) Speech radio is a common term used to distinguish dedicated-to-speech stations like BBC Radio 4 from music stations (which also have plenty of speech) like Radio 1 or Classic FM. As it happens, I found a better wording that suited both of us, so that was okay.

Tomorrow it will be over - corrections emailed back to be incorporated before the manuscript moves down the production line to be given the layout of a real book.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope