Typos in published novels?

I guess I'm in the "so what, big deal" camp. Typos happen. They can't be helped. If I see one when I'm reading I keep reading. It doesn't bother me. Unless it's exceptionally funny, then I'll highlight it, mark the page, and show it to all my friends.

Just to let everyone know the process, at least from one publisher, I'm in the midst of the trek right now. I just returned the page proofs for my historical, and my errata list included about a dozen typos in a story of 350+ printed pages. In addition, there were several formatting issues and a short section of repeated text (a couple of sentences). Following corrections from my errata list, the text is going to a proofreader for a final go-through. In a few weeks, I'll get a test book (actual printed book) for a final go-through and one more chance to submit an errata list. I presume there will be a final proof read back at the publisher before all is ready for the printer. I don't know if this is typical of most publishers, but it seems very thorough. On the other hand, I worry that I've missed something since I'm just sick to death of reading these words.

NeuroFizz said:

On the other hand, I worry that I've missed something since I'm just sick to death of reading these words.

Click to expand...

Same here. The sad thing is, typos still slipped through. I found a couple after we actually went to print. Oh, the horror.

A friend of mine also gets bothered by typos and she would point that out to me. The funny thing is, she's often wrong. HAHA. For example, she called me and said, "It's beta fish, not betta." I wish she could just relax.

reph said:

For the third time (count 'em: one from Medievalist, two from me), no, you don't. I can't tune out typos or misspellings. They show up like a grape-juice stain on a white shirt.

Click to expand...

And yet, I'll bet you miss some of your own typos and misspellings. They are a fact of life. Noticing them is one thing, obsessing over them, letting them disrupt your reading pleasure, and demanding perfection in all you read is another. (Don't get me wrong, if a work is literally filled with errors, that's one thing, but we're talking about a handful or two of errors in tens of thousands of words.) If that's your benchmark, you're pretty much doomed to disappointment. There are a lot of excellent books out there to read that have an error or two in them. It's a pity you won't ever be able to enjoy them

Beth

Typos

I see typos in pubished novels, but they don't bother me unless there are a LOT of them them,

The only time I obsess over typos is when I'm getting ready to submit a manuscript, and then again when the galley proofs arrive. I go over the galley proofs one word at a time, I keep notes, and I assume I'm 100% responsible for finding every typo.

No one can proof their own work. Well, maybe someone, but it's rare.

At some publishers, once you reach galleys, there's a point at which they charge for changes. This is not new, nor is it uncommoon. Changes at that point are potentially hideously expensive.

Medievalist said:

No one can proof their own work. Well, maybe someone, but it's rare.

At some publishers, once you reach galleys, there's a point at which they charge for changes. This is not new, nor is it uncommoon. Changes at that point are potentially hideously expensive.

Click to expand...

I don't think any publisher charges for fixing typos in galley. At least no legitimate publisher. Certainly none I know about, or have heard read about. Typos in the galley proofs are there because an editor or typesetter screwed up, and the publisher not only has to let you correct typos, they want you to do so. It's the main reason they send the writer galley proofs. There wouldn't be any point to receiving galley proofs if you couldn't fix typos.

Making changes at this point is expensive, and most contracts I've seen allow no more than ten lines of content to be changed before you have to start paying for the changes, but you can fix an unlimited number of typos for free. The publisher doesn't want them in the novel anymore than does the writer, and they wouldn't be there at all unless someone at the publisher screwed up.

As for proofing yur own work, a writer who can't would have a novel full of typos. Reading your own work for quality and content can be problematic for many, but it should be no more difficult to proof your own work than it is to proof the work of others.

There are certainly many writers who can't proof their own work well, but they aren't any better at proofing the work of others. Many simply do not have the ability to proof well, no matter who wrote the work.

In fact, I'd say a writer who isn't pretty darned good at proofing his own work is going to have a devil of a time getting published in the first place, at least with fiction.

Nonfiction editors tend to be far more forgiving of poorly proofed work than fiction editors. With nonfiction, information and content is more important at the manuscript stage than is lack of typos. Fiction editors are much less forgiving, at least with new writers.

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't think any publisher charges for fixing typos in galley. At least no legitimate publisher. Certainly none I know about, or have heard read about. Typos in the galley proofs are there because an editor or typesetter screwed up, and the publisher not only has to let you correct typos, they want you to do so. It's the main reason they send the writer galley proofs. There wouldn't be any point to receiving galley proofs if you couldn't fix typos.

Click to expand...

I know that for myself and a handful of other pubbed writers I've spoken to on this matter, by the time you get to the bound galley stage it's beyond tedium to have to read the danged thing again. Plus that "prebook" look tends to cloud the vision for some. With each of my books I was tempted to only skim read by the time I got to the bound galley stage (particularly since I was often well into a new work at this point) but each time I forced myself to sit down and read carefully. I was always glad I did because it led to finding errors that had thus far been missed.

Reading your own work for quality and content can be problematic for many, but it should be no more difficult to proof your own work than it is to proof the work of others.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I think it's a little (or sometimes a lot) harder for most writers to proof their own work over someone else's because you know your own work so well and tend to fill things in mentally rather than actually reading and seeing. That makes us more prone to miss some things. That's one reason why time away from the work before editing can be helpful.

Beth

In the Olden Days <TM>, proofreading was done by two people: one reading aloud, and the other following on the proofs. Or so I'm told.

FWIW, I worked in book production for 16 years. No matter what the stage of production, an author was never charged for the correction of a legitimate error (e.g., a misspelled word missed by the copyeditor, odd word breaks introducted by the compositor). However, authors were always charged, including in galley proofs, for making changes that were not related to actual errors that were somebody else's fault. For instance, correcting "blu" to "blue" wouldn't be a charge. Changing "blue" to "indigo" would result in a charge. And years ago, in galleys or page proofs that charge would be something like $1.35 for the line that contained the charge and another buck or fifty cents for every line to the end of the paragraph, which is how the charges added up so fast. In pages, there would also be a remake charge. This was in the days when final product was film, so we're talking a few years, now. Things might be different now that everything is so digital. Also, this was a nonfiction environment.

On the other hand, as long as these "AAs" ('author alterations') didn't exceed 10% of the cost of composition, the publisher ate the cost and didn't apply it to author royalties. So there was some leeway, however small, for your indigos.

Avalon said:

So there was some leeway, however small, for your indigos.

Click to expand...

I love this line.

Beth

cwfgal said:

And yet, I'll bet you miss some of your own typos and misspellings.

Click to expand...

Oh? Please do let me know if you ever find a typo or misspelling in a post of mine.

There are a lot of excellent books out there to read that have an error or two in them. It's a pity you won't ever be able to enjoy them.

Click to expand...

That's quite a leap you made there. I enjoy books that have errors. I just don't enjoy the errors.

Medievalist said:

At some publishers, once you reach galleys, there's a point at which they charge for changes. This is not new, nor is it uncommoon. Changes at that point are potentially hideously expensive.

Click to expand...

The expense that the publisher incurs is dependent upon where in the printing cycle you are. If you catch it early (galley stage) the manuscript can easily be fixed before it goes to final print run. The publisher's name is also on the book, and they have a duty and desire to get it right. The author isn't charged for that, nor should they be.

reph said:

Oh? Please do let me know if you ever find a typo or misspelling in a post of mine.

That's quite a leap you made there. I enjoy books that have errors. I just don't enjoy the errors.

Click to expand...

reph, do you actually never make them, or do you carefully read over every post before you hit submit?

This is impossible folks.

On person cannot catch all their mistakes. Some even have harder times then others.

Now when you add more people in the mix they may catch the errors that you created but the chances of inserting their own errors are high.

I deal with publishing in house (corporate) material in my day job. For every new hand you can expect another error.

And reph, you forgot a comma.

aruna said:

reph, do you actually never make them, or do you carefully read over every post before you hit submit?

Click to expand...

I don't make spelling errors. I read for typos before submitting and after posting. If I find a typo after posting, I edit the post.

Tir., what comma did I forget? People often disagree about commas.

I'm one of the people to whom errors seem to leap out. They don't necessarily ruin my enjoyment of said book, but I just can't help but notice them. (Someone ahead of me said grape juice on a white shirt...exactly.) Sure, people are human and mistakes happen. I just keep reading.

Avalon said:

In the Olden Days <TM>, proofreading was done by two people: one reading aloud, and the other following on the proofs. Or so I'm told.

FWIW, I worked in book production for 16 years. No matter what the stage of production, an author was never charged for the correction of a legitimate error (e.g., a misspelled word missed by the copyeditor, odd word breaks introducted by the compositor). However, authors were always charged, including in galley proofs, for making changes that were not related to actual errors that were somebody else's fault. For instance, correcting "blu" to "blue" wouldn't be a charge. Changing "blue" to "indigo" would result in a charge. And years ago, in galleys or page proofs that charge would be something like $1.35 for the line that contained the charge and another buck or fifty cents for every line to the end of the paragraph, which is how the charges added up so fast. In pages, there would also be a remake charge. This was in the days when final product was film, so we're talking a few years, now. Things might be different now that everything is so digital. Also, this was a nonfiction environment.

On the other hand, as long as these "AAs" ('author alterations') didn't exceed 10% of the cost of composition, the publisher ate the cost and didn't apply it to author royalties. So there was some leeway, however small, for your indigos.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the way it works everywhere, I think. Though every publisher I've written for, and every galley guidelines I've seen, allows the writer to make up to ten changes, such as "blue" to "indigo" before the writer has to start paying. Changing ten words is a very small bone to throw to a writer.

But you're right. There's no way a publisher is going to change you for correcting mistakes in galley.

reph said:

Oh? Please do let me know if you ever find a typo or misspelling in a post of mine.

Click to expand...

If I remember to, I will. But I learned long ago to gloss over post errors rather than point them out because most people don't take it well. Besides, a few dozen words in a post isn't the same as a 100,000 word manuscript.

That's quite a leap you made there. I enjoy books that have errors. I just don't enjoy the errors.

Click to expand...

I made that leap based on this previous comment of yours: "There'd be more joy in reading if they didn't stick their little heads up and say "Here I am!"

From that and other comments you made it sounded to me as if typos and misspellings significantly hamper your joy of reading, which struck me as terribly sad since the likelihood of finding perfection in most works is slim. If I misunderstood, my apologies. Clarity can be as much of a bugaboo for some as typos and spelling.

Beth

Tirjasdyn said:

This is impossible folks.

On person cannot catch all their mistakes. Some even have harder times then others.

Now when you add more people in the mix they may catch the errors that you created but the chances of inserting their own errors are high.

I deal with publishing in house (corporate) material in my day job. For every new hand you can expect another error.

And reph, you forgot a comma.

Click to expand...

It isn't at all impossible. I seldom proof my posts here, but I always proof my manuscripts. I'm getting paid to write those. So far, all the typos found in my published fiction, and there have been darned few, have been there solely because an editor or typesetter made them after I had a last look.

New eyes can only insert their own mistakes if they are actually changing text. If they only look for and eliminate typos, they shouldn't be able to add mistakes of their own because they won't have opportunity.

Typos most often get missed because the person looking for them is reading the text, rather than proofing it. Reading the text works to a degree, but in addition to reading, you also have to look at each word individually.

And they get missed, of course, because of too much faith in technology. These days, even many editors rely on spellcheck, and this is a sure way to allow typos to get into a novel.

But it is certainly not impossible to catch all you own mistakes. For me, at least, it's a heck of a lot easier to catch all the mistakes I make than it is to catch all the mistakes those extra eyes make.

cwfgal said:

I don't know. I think it's a little (or sometimes a lot) harder for most writers to proof their own work over someone else's because you know your own work so well and tend to fill things in mentally rather than actually reading and seeing. That makes us more prone to miss some things. That's one reason why time away from the work before editing can be helpful.

Beth

Click to expand...

If you make this mistake, it's because you're reading your own text, rather than proofing it. You can only fill things in mentally if you're reading a sentence as a whole. To proof accurately for typos, you read through the sentence once for context, and then go through each word in the sentence one at a time. Use a piece of paper to block out all the following words, if it helps.

But with a bit practice, proofing is almost as fast as reading. I don't think good proofing is a matter of time or distance, but of technique. Some people read their sentences back to front, and this works very well for most.

cwfgal said:

I know that for myself and a handful of other pubbed writers I've spoken to on this matter, by the time you get to the bound galley stage it's beyond tedium to have to read the danged thing again. Plus that "prebook" look tends to cloud the vision for some. With each of my books I was tempted to only skim read by the time I got to the bound galley stage (particularly since I was often well into a new work at this point) but each time I forced myself to sit down and read carefully. I was always glad I did because it led to finding errors that had thus far been missed.



I don't know. I think it's a little (or sometimes a lot) harder for most writers to proof their own work over someone else's because you know your own work so well and tend to fill things in mentally rather than actually reading and seeing. That makes us more prone to miss some things. That's one reason why time away from the work before editing can be helpful.

Beth

Click to expand...

One more thing here. I guess it's the approach. I hate reading my own work time after time in the editing process, I get sick of it, but when galley time rolls around, well, that's a whole new ballgame. The writer is then the last person between mistakes and the reading public, and my attidtude is that nothng gets past me.

I don't think I ever concentrate more intensely, or read as slowly and carefully, as I do during galley. My goal is to always send back a novel that contains not a single typo, spelling error, etc.

For me, galley is the end of the road, the very last time I'll ever read that piece of fiction before it's published. I usually read once after it's pubished just to be certain everything made it into the novel as it should have, but galley is where I take full responsibility for the published novel. Editor, copyeditor, and typesetter have all done their thing, and now it's my turn.

So if there is a typo in one of my published novels, the fault is all mine.

Jamesaritchie said:

Typos most often get missed because the person looking for them is reading the text, rather than proofing it. Reading the text works to a degree, but in addition to reading, you also have to look at each word individually.

Click to expand...

You need to do both. Words such as "there" and "their" or "flair" and "flare" are not going jump out as typo unless the person actually reads the text, and unless the person knows the difference. I had a typo ("slump" instead of "slum") that took me forever to find.

Proofreading your own work is not impossible, but extremely hard to do well. That's why we have proofreaders.

cwfgal said:

From that and other comments you made it sounded to me as if typos and misspellings significantly hamper your joy of reading, which struck me as terribly sad since the likelihood of finding perfection in most works is slim....

Click to expand...

Your post gave me the impression that you got a kick out of feeling sorry for me. It felt like a pat on the head. In fact, unless my perceptions are way off, several posts around here look like attempts to take me down a peg for saying that typos bother me and I can catch my own. Why are people so skeptical? Did I offend someone? Individuals' abilities differ. I can't carry a tune, and perfect pitch is a mystery to me, but I don't doubt that some people have it.

What happens when I find a mistake in a book is, I think "HarperCollins should know better than that! If they'd hired me instead..." The other day, I found "five hundreds dollars" in an HC paperback* – a major work by a famous scholar, too. How hard is it to spot that extra "s"?
__________

*Not to be confused with finding five hundred dollars in an HC paperback.

reph said:

Your post gave me the impression that you got a kick out of feeling sorry for me. It felt like a pat on the head. In fact, unless my perceptions are way off, several posts around here look like attempts to take me down a peg for saying that typos bother me and I can catch my own. Why are people so skeptical? Did I offend someone? Individuals' abilities differ. I can't carry a tune, and perfect pitch is a mystery to me, but I don't doubt that some people have it.

Click to expand...

I wasn't patting you on the head. Typos bother me, too, and I can also catch most of my own (though I'm less religious about it on boards such as this than I am in my novel work) so I don't have a problem with that. But I also know that to expect perfection in every book produced is unrealistic so I'm not overly bothered by the occasional typo or misspelling.

What happens when I find a mistake in a book is, I think "HarperCollins should know better than that! If they'd hired me instead..." The other day, I found "five hundreds dollars" in an HC paperback* – a major work by a famous scholar, too. How hard is it to spot that extra "s"?
__________

Click to expand...

You may well have a great skill when it comes to editing but if you edit hundreds of thousands of words day in and day out, week after week, year after year, with distractions going on around you, and time pressures pushing you to get through the current work and on to the next one (which is the way most copyeditors work; it's the only way they can make a halfway decent living at it) you're bound to overlook things from time to time. It's easy to say you can do better than someone else, but until you walk a mile in their shoes and all that...

Beth

Yes.

You will note my originally post read "At some publishers, once you reach galleys, there's a point at which they charge for changes. This is not new, nor is it uncommoon. Changes at that point are potentially hideously expensive."

Changes. Not corrections. Changes. And the example you gave was perfect; changing a character's name everywhere it occurs just came up for a book I'm working on. No one noticed that the character's name was mis-spelled (this is a literary encyclopedia about a particular author's works).

The Press isn't charging for that; it's an error, but it should have been caught earlier.

Another example: In a historical study, the scholar / author wants to use Greek characters instead of the transliteration for all Greek words. This is a) an arbitrary change, and it's very costly to make the changes. The publisher (a univeristy press) is going to charge the author.