A question for Monkey and Wombat

Ok

There are two types of editing.

Copy and Line. Some people do both some only one. A copy editor goes through and helps with story and form and so on. A line editor is a grammar whore.

HOWEVER.

Some writers are big enough they can REFUSE editors. Like say JKR. No editor touches her books now. Which is why they are like that. So do not blame Scholastic, blame her for having an ego the size of a moon if she thinks she is above editing (please note Anne Rice and a few others also refuse editing)

Can't be a copy editor, since I'm a terrible storyteller and to shy to suggest to other people what they should write. I'll be a line editor, then - I have no problem going all Grammar Nazi on people's asses. I think I might even be serious about that. Thank you!

Now, if I were in JKR's position, and had built this huge empire on a relatively small series of books, I would want to make damn sure that all of my words were spelled correctly and/or not confused with their homophones. Otherwise, no matter how well the story was written, it would still feel sloppy. I hate to think that this woman is so stuck on herself that she won't even allow another pair of eyes to spell-check for her. I prefer to think that Scholastic's typesetters (or whatever) were the ones who fucked it up. I wonder how hard it would be to get my hands on a British copy and compare?

to shy

Well, lookit that! Maybe I wouldn't be such a great line editor, after all. LOL

The thing is that some authors get a bug up their ass that an editor will change their perfect work. It is totally bullshit and pretentious and drives me nuts.

Similarly, people who, through declining to let anyone mess with their "perfect" work allow it to remain imperfect, make me gnash my teeth in frustration.

Not being a writer myself, I don't feel the grrrrness you do about other authors' egos. But goddamn, those typos get to me!

came here by way of the blue monkey

I wonder how hard it would be to get my hands on a British copy and compare?

you could probably get one from amazon.com. just dont expect it any time soon (i am sure) considering like, half the world has ordered their copy for release day delivery (i on the other hand, will have to hold out for the paperback copy.. seeing as how i am too poor for hardcover, and also have all paperback so far, so why change now?)

Re: came here by way of the blue monkey

Hiya, Quacker's Mom!

I'll have to hold off the the U.K. edition, myself. I'm also too poor to afford hardback; I only got this one by dint of my mom having pre-ordered it as an early birthday present for me, then handing me the confirmation with a $20 bill folded inside it.

To which I say, "YAY, moms!"

Re: came here by way of the blue monkey

lol. my father thinks Harry Potter is horrible, evil stuff due to it being full of witches and wizards.. but he loves Lord of the Rings (and i ask what the difference between Gandalf being a wizard, and all the wizards in HP is, and he doesnt give a streight answer..) though i may use some of his rent money to order the hardback so i can read it, then when the paperback comes out, sell the hardcover to buy the paperback. that way, i win all around ;)

There are actually all different kinds of editors, and very few of them will hold your hand and guide you through the writing process. That's your job as the writer. A copyeditor will check your manuscript for technical errors and to make sure that everything flows and makes sense, but usually only after you've finished the work. They may call for revisions, etc, as necessary, and perhaps even suggest plot changes or whatever to increase, or more likely decrease the length of the book.

A proofreader will probably read your manuscript before you give it to an editor, though once you're working with an editor they'll probably run your stuff past one of *their* proofreaders, though many *many* new mass-market paperbacks are making it onto the market with really inexcusable typos, which really pretty much *anyone* who reads it should be pointing out, which kinda tells me that not as many people are reading them as probably should be...

So, if you want to point out errors, that's a proofreader or maybe also called a line editor. A copy editor, or just "editor" is the one who will interact with the writer on the qualitative... qualities of the piece. A publisher may or may not have anything to do with that. Usually what's referred to as "a publisher" is really actually a publishing *house*, where there will work editors who you interact with.

I think that's right...

Yup, a proofreader is precisely what I want to be. Much as I hate to admit it, I almost take it personally when I see a glaring error like "site" used for "sight" in print. Now to find someone who wants to pay me to fix those nastly little bits of wrongness....

Regarding the mass-market paperbacks: When you say "mass-market", I think of John Grisham and Dean Koontz and trashy romance novels. The Grisham/Koontz types might be able to recognize the errors, but I have no faith whatsoever in the romance crowd. It would be shameful for sure if fewer people were reading them (and by "them", I mean "any books at all, 'cuz reading is good"), but more shameful still if people just didn't know any better...and I suspect that's often the case.

You have NO idea how carefully I'm checking these replies for spelling, grammatical, and syntactical erros.

By the way, Wombat, I absolutely love the way you use that userpic. It's perfect! "Hobbes Pontificates." *giggle*

A mass-market paperback is the small paperback books that you see at the bookstore. The ones that are all over the place, and in the shelves at the grocery store. The taller ones are trade paperbacks.

n. fug

A heavy, stale atmosphere, especially the musty air of an overcrowded or poorly ventilated room: “In spite of the open windows the stench had become a reeking fug” (Colleen McCullough). (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fug)

check out page 485, i think it was paragraph 5 or something. she calls ron "rupert" (the actor).