=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 3, no. 15 (12 April 1998) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2de] Writing of dates [2dg] Barzun reference Q & A---new queries [2dh] Land management terminology [2di] Word breaks [2dj] Length of an index FYI [3bt] Career flyers -- an update Business matters---previous posting [4aj] Irritants Business matters---new postings [4ak] Looking for multimedia authors/publishers [4al] Expenses [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------------- ** [2de] Writing of dates Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 From: Richard Harris, 100131.3564@compuserve.com Further to my original posting on the writing of dates, I was led to ask the question about style because the manuscript I was working on, for a financial publisher, had a mix of formats. The tax year references were easy: 1997/98 is their style. But then I hit my headache. Date formats were either 1.4.97 or 1/4/97. There was no consistency throughout the MS. In the end I chose to change all dates to the 1/4/97 style, as I reasoned that 1.4.97 _could_ by some readers be miscontrued as a decimal number gone haywire. So let me ask my question again: > Is there a custom or habit for using full stops or solidi? --------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Josephine Bacon wrote: > Americans never use full stops between dates written as numbers, > always solidi. They never write a date with the number before the > month, i.e. always December 12, and never use the "th". They spell > out numbers from one to ten. While periods are rarely used in such dates, they *are* used. And the rest of these statements are not true at all. Many people prefer to style dates number then month; the Chicago Manual of Style has recommended this form since at least the 12th edition (the most current edition is the 14th). I would guess that more than half of my authors style dates "12 December 1997." Some house styles don't allow the "th," but some do--and many people still use it, especially when the year is not mentioned, and especially when the month is given first: "We are leaving on May 5th." (I don't think I've ever heard anyone drop the "th" in speech--"We are leaving on May five" would sound very odd to me!) And as several other people have mentioned, which numbers to spell out is usually a matter of house style, or of the nature of the text. > Months come before days, as in 3/31/97 except in the military and on > immigration forms (because the whole of the rest of the world does it > the other way). Again, the style day/month/year goes well beyond the military and immigration forms. It is quite common here! Perhaps you are confusing certain publishers' house style with general U.S. practice. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dg] Barzun reference Date: Tues, 31 Mar 1998 From: Barry Neavill, aa3401@wayne.edu The Barzun article is in the Summer 1985 issue of *American Scholar* on pp. 385-88. It's reprinted in the 2nd ed of *On Writing, Editing, and Publishing* (Chicago, 1986), which is a collection of miscellaneous essays and generally worth reading. I think "Behind the Blue Pencil" was also reprinted in *Publishers Weekly* but I don't have that citation handy. ----------------------- Date: Thurs, 2 Apr 1998 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz >Barzun, J. (1985). Behind the blue pencil: censorship or creeping >creativity? _The American Scholar_, 54 (3) I too have been seeking this reference. The university library here holds _The American Scholar_ but cancelled its subscription between vol. 52 and vol. 58. I'm told the article is reprinted in _Substance and Style: Instruction and Practice in Copyediting_, by Mary Stoughton (Alexandria, VA: Editorial Experts, 1989). However, it's not to be found in the second edition of that book published in 1996. Priscilla S. Taylor is said to have responded to Barzun's piece with a piece of her own, also reprinted in the 1989 _Substance and Style_, but first published in the _Editorial Eye_, issue 122. If you already have a photocopy of this essay and merely want to include the pagination in a source note, you should be able to find out the page numbers from one of the indexing or abstracting services. Why, I wonder, do copyeditors get such a bad press? Not only Barzun but John Gross, Kingsley Amis and others have recorded their low opinion of the service they received. When I think of some of the authors (usually academic) whose ignorance, carelessness, incoherence, etc., I have successfully hidden or disguised, I think I deserve a medal. Which is not to say that copyeditors can't themselves make mistakes. After correcting "elegaic" to "elegiac" innumerable times in one recent project, I was taken aback to find "elegaic" in print in an earlier publication I had copyedited. Can any others offer references to FAVOURABLE comments about copyeditors? The nicest compliment I received (alas, it was spoken to my face) was that I had robbed one of my authors of their* chance of winning the annual bad writing prize. *[sic]: I'm not telling you whether the author was a man or a woman. --------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Joy Burrough asked: > I wonder if anyone can help me complete the following reference, by > supplying the page numbers? A friend who attended a university evening > course on editing in the States last year has given me a photocopied > mimeo of the article. The source appears at the end - minus the page > numbers! > > Barzun, J. (1985). Behind the blue pencil: censorship or creeping > creativity? _The American Scholar_, 54 (3) I found only one bibliographic reference to Barzun's "Behind the Blue Pencil," and according to this author it is a chapter from that very book, _On Writing, Editing, and Publishing_, originally published in 1971. Perhaps it was reprinted in _American Scholar_--or perhaps the journal article was reprinted in the later edition of the book, which is listed as "revised and expanded." This citation gives the pub dates of the book as 1971, 1986 and gives the page numbers therein for "Behind the Blue Pencil" as 103-112. If it was indeed reprinted there from _American Scholar_, that information (and the relevant page numbers) should be included in the book. --------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 From: Judyth Mermelstein, Judyth_Mermelstein@babylon.montreal.qc.ca Joy Burrough writes: > Barzun has also written _On writing, editing and publishing: essays > explicative and hortatory_ (1985, University of Chicago Press). Has > anyone out there read that? What's it like? Delightful! It's the kind of lightweight paperback which I find ideal as a travelling companion--I enjoy re-reading it periodically on long bus rides. I also find myself quoting from it (along with some of Barzun's weightier works like _The Modern Researcher_) when I give an occasional talk on what editors do. He advocates care and clarity on the part of writers and editors, without coming across as hopelessly pedantic. As always, Barzun writes wittily and elegantly. The subject-matter should be dear to our hearts, too, although he certainly scores a few points on the subject of copy editing when he points out an absurd error in the original edition of an Edgar Allan Poe story has been repeated mindlessly through numerous later editions! This case of detective-work by Barzun serves as a constant reminder that we editors can never assume a reference was checked the last time around. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dh] Land management terminology Date: Thurs, 2 Apr 1998 From: Kathy Stackhouse, 72701.2746@compuserve.com I'm working on a translation of new land laws in the former Soviet Union. Can anyone recommend a reference (hard or electronic) for English-language terminology on land management and urban planning? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2di] Word breaks Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 From: Saul, sgf@lrb.co.uk I've been looking for some information on the history, psychology, and theory of word-breaks (i.e., when and where you split a word that overruns the end of a line of justified text. Is there a standard work out there, or does anyone have any suggestions? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dj] Length of an index Date: Thurs, 9 Apr 1998 From: Laura Pomeroy, info@taxbriefs.co.uk Can anyone tell me what the *ideal* length of an index? I've heard it said that the ideal index should be x% of the number of pages of the book itself. What is this x%? ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------------- ** [3bt] Career flyers -- an update Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 From: Judyth Mermelstein, Judyth_Mermelstein@babylon.montreal.qc.ca A brief update: As many of you will have guessed, the deadline for the career flier was simply unrealistic given that I was in transit much of the time. Ultimately, I had to advise my colleagues that it simply wouldn't be ready on time. The project is now on the back burner while I complete my current (paying) work and try to catch up on everything that got shunted aside. I would like to thank all those who responded, on or off the list, and to assure everyone that when I return to working on the flier (probably in May or June for use in the fall), I will be asking for the appropriate permissions early enough for people to respond. A special "thank you" is due to Kathleen Lyle, who kindly shared a draft of an SFEP document with me, and to our own Iain Brown and Jane Kerr, who tried to help me do the impossible. ---[4] Business matters ---------------------------------------------- ** [4aj] Irritants Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk I'm surprised not to have drawn more fire from publishers over my list of publishers' bad habits! I can't imagine why.... One (off-list) reply was interesting, and perhaps the particular publisher will join in publicly. I'd also like to hear more complaints from publishers about freelances and vice versa - I'm sure we haven't covered them all yet. To reply to Roger Jones, who raises some good points: there are good tests and bad tests, and I will concede that a good test can be of help to a publisher. However, there are very few of these. The majority of tests that I've seen involve a few pages of sixth or seventh generation photocopied typescript, stuffed with traps, such as misquotations, common misspellings and miscalculations. No real job ever looks like this. To add to the lack of realism, there is a rarely a deadline or a fee. >From my in-house days, I know that I was also interested in whether a freelance could meet a deadline at the right price. A real chapter from a real book, with a fee payable and a deadline to meet, creates a real-world test. It could even be a chapter from the book that you want copy-edited! The difficulty with that method is that it takes the publisher longer to check the freelance's work, whereas a short test can be assessed in a quick skim. But who really wants to assess a freelance in 60 seconds? My complaint about the absence of any work resulting from the test relates to those situations in which the publisher initiated the contact. If I, as a freelance, write to a publisher to ask for work, then I'll do whatever the publisher asks in the way of tests and hope for, rather than expect, work. But, like most freelances, I've received letters that begin: 'We are looking to add new copy-editors to our list of potential freelance workers. If you are interested in working for us, please complete the enclosed test'. Whenever I have completed such a test I have always received confirmation that I passed the test and that work would be forthcoming. Never has a single job appeared. Am I just very unlucky? Roger's advice about handling slow payment is good. In addition, I often bypass the editorial department and talk directly to the finance department if payment is persistently slow. Finance people will do anything (even write cheques) to avoid having to talk to creditors. I understand the reasons why jobs disappear, but I don't understand why freelances don't get told the moment the book is delayed. I know that sometimes the in-house contact doesn't get much notice either, but not every time. Freelances and in-house editors probably need to be more proactive in these situations in order to keep each other informed about changes of date. (I have one very good contact who even calls me just to say that the job is still expected on time - thereby making certain that I keep the time slot free.) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4ak] Looking for multimedia authors/publishers Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 From: Maureen Wright, MWright@email.dot.gov.au [Cross-posted from TAA-L by way of Editorial-L] I am looking for any suggestions members might have for helping me contact authors and textbook publishers who are interested in developing multimedia and other forms of electronic content. A quick review of my background: I am a cognitive psychologist, and I have authored several books in the higher education marketplace. Furthermore, in conjunction with my multimedia company, I have authored and developed numerous educational web sites, 10 CD-ROMs, and 2 educational films. I would like to be able to contact authors and publishers who are considering developing electronic content. In addition to the higher education market, our company would like to partner with authors and publishers in the K-12 marketplace. If you could pass on any names or suggestions, it would be much appreciated. Feel free to respond either on the list or to me directly at: artkohn@kwamba.com +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4al] Expenses Date: Thurs, 9 Apr 1998 From: Sara Hulse, SaraHulse@compuserve.com I wonder if anyone can give me some advice on charging for expenses such as postage, telephone calls, e-mail, printing, etc. I have always charged postage, and usually telephone calls, but increasingly now I am using e-mail to send and receive work, and often have to download files and print them out. As a result, these expenses are becoming more significant, and I would welcome any advice about what I should be charging clients. ---[5] Bookmarks ----------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 From: Iain Brown, i_brown@compuserve.com The British Library Early Printed Collections New Web pages for Early Printed Collections in the British Library are available at: < http://www.bl.uk/collections/epc/ > Also avaliable are catalogues in the following areas: Incunabula British Printed Collections, 1501-1800 English Short Title Catalogue British Printed Collections, 1801-1914 Dutch Printed Collections, 1501-1850 French Printed Collections, 1501-1850 German Printed Collections, 1501-1850 Hispanic Printed Collections, 1501-1850 Italian Printed Collections, 1501-1850 Scandinavian Printed Collections, 1501-1850 Bindings and Decorated Papers ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------------- "Lines from the slushpile", no. 29 "An omelet for mademoiselle," Jimmy pronounced, "and an 'amburger pour moi." I think that was when I fell in love with him. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Felicity Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 From: Lionel Browne, Lionel_Browne@sand-con.demon.co.uk Culled from the COPYEDITING-L mailing list today (RD = Reader's Digest): > Found this in my new issue of RD: > > While reviewing copy for the entertainment newspaper he edited, my > son came across the word "felicity" and changed it to "happiness." > When his assitant editor asked why, my son told him that "felicity" > was archaic, adding, "We can't have archaic and edit too." > (Contributed by William Chambless) If you don't get it, try reading it out loud... ---[8] Administration ------------------------------------------------ EDline provides the opportunity for a weekly online discussion of matters editorial and editorial business. * POSTING MESSAGES TO THE LIST All messages to be posted to the list should be sent to Iain Brown, at: i_brown@compuserve.com Include as the subject line, "EDline [topic]", where [topic] is the subject under discussion. Topics might include areas such as Grammar, Spelling, American English or Punctuation. Messages should be pertinent to the basic premise of the list; they may be withheld, or redirected if more pertinent to one of the other mailing lists. The spelling and grammar of messages will *not* be corrected, but some editing of length may be undertaken. Quoting from previous messages: quote as much as you need to make the context of your reply clear, but no more. The sections of EDline are as follows: [2] Q & A -- questions and answers [3] FYI -- items of general interest [4] Business matters -- items of a business nature [5] Bookmarks -- useful Web pages [6] Just for fun -- time for letting hair down! [7] Miscellaneous -- odds and sods * Administration All messages of a subscription or administrative nature should be directed to Jane Kerr, at: bywater@zetnet.co.uk with "EDline ADMIN" in the subject line. * To subscribe to Grapevine To subscribe to Grapevine, the discussion list concerned with matters computing, please e-mail Electric Editors at: ElectricEds@bigfoot.com with [Subscribe Grapevine] in the subject line. * To subscribe to LANGline To subscribe to LANGline, which discusses modern languages, translation and editing in non-English languages, please e-mail Electric Editors at: ElectricEds@bigfoot.com with [Subscribe LANGline] in the subject line. *Homepage and back issues: Visit the Electric Editors at: < http://www.ikingston.demon.co.uk/ee/home.htm > Back issues of all three mailing lists are available on the Mailing Lists archive page. --------- ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 1998, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997, Iain Brown Compilation (c) 1998, The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 3.15 Next issue: 19 April 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=