Dear
Friends:
I
spend a lot of time trying to keep track of new publications in syllabic
forms. I work full time, and have the
other usual social commitments, but in my free time I am likely to search
various sites on the web to see what is the latest in syllabic poetry. I do this by going to amazon, lulu,
authorhouse, and other print-on-demand publishers and putting in key words like
‘haiku’, ‘tetractys’, ‘cinquain’, etc.
And then I see what comes up and what draws my attention.
POD
(print-on-demand) technology has given many poets, of all kinds, the
opportunity to publish their works without having to go through traditional
channels. As recently as twenty years
ago a poet interested in syllabic forms would first have to find a publication
that was interested in their work, submit many times, and after some years
perhaps gather their poetry into a single volume. That has all changed and I think it is all to
the good.
There
is, however, one aspect of POD that I would like to draw attention to. That is the frequent appearance of typos in
the published literature. Almost always
these are typos that spell-checkers won’t catch. A particularly prominent one is the misuse,
or absence, of apostrophes where they should appear. And, congruent with this, a confusion over
the ‘its’ and ‘it’s’ in English. Other
things the spell-checker won’t catch are homonyms like ‘hear’ and ‘here’. (As an aside, I am not referring here to
regional differences in English spelling like the American ‘color’ vs. the
British ‘colour’.)
In
reviewing POD books of poetry I have not mentioned these. I have refrained for several reasons. First, I suspect that the authors will spot
them and the errors corrected at the next ‘printing’. It is fairly easy in POD technology to insert
a correction, and I have seen this done with a number of works. Second, I am sympathetic to the difficulty of
catching one’s own mistakes. I have, in
the past, worked at several magazines and one of my tasks was
proofreading. I could spot others’
errors even with a quick scan. In
contrast, when I try to proof my own work I often miss the most obvious errors. There is a psychology involved: because I
know what I mean to say, and because that is prominent in my mind, I can easily
miss what is actually on the paper/screen.
When I look at someone else’s work, I don’t have that preconception clouding
my observation.
This
leads to what I hope people will take as a friendly suggestion: if you are
using POD services, before sending your work to the publisher have a good
friend read your work. And ask them to
read it for typos. If you know someone
who was an editor, or has a background in English spelling and grammar, that
would be a plus.
I
have a friend who recently used POD to publish his novel. He used POD to print out his first complete
effort. He then gave copies to friends
specifically asking for typo and grammar corrections. I believe he gave copies to four
friends. He told me that between us we
uncovered hundreds of minor mistakes that he had not seen himself. After correcting his text he went on to use
POD to publish his book and it is now up at Amazon and has been reviewed by
several publications. This is the kind
of procedure I would like to see poets adopt as well.
I
don’t want to overstress the point. I’ve
been involved with books for decades and I have great stories to tell about
typos that got through to publication. I
remember one that appeared in a work by a contemporary physicist on new
science-based cosmologies. In the
chapter on entropy he described the gradual running down of the cosmos and
wrote of ‘the heat death of the university.’
I bet he got quite a few jabs from his colleagues over that one! And remember, this was Oxford University
Press; very prestigious. Yet it got
through all the way to publication. It
was corrected in the second printing, of course.
Nevertheless,
I have seen it often enough in the new poetry volumes I read, both in my own work and in others, that I think it
is worth noting. Just a friendly reminder from a fellow poet.
Best
wishes,
Jim
1 comment:
Thanks for the reminder, Jim. I think back on how often I've proofed my own writing only to read it later with dismay. Following your advice can save a writer a lot of grief.
Post a Comment