=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 3, no. 17 (26 April 1998) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2de] Writing of dates [2di] Word breaks [2dk] Favourable edit reviews [Offshoot of [2dg] Barzun reference] Q & A---new queries [2dl] Proofreaders marks [2dm] Poetry Web sites [2dn] Is "non" hyphenated in American English? [2do] The old IBM statement [2dp] Compiling an index Business matters---previous postings [4aj] Irritants [4al] Expenses Business matters---new postings [4am] Citus Books [4an] Web proofreader required [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [7] Miscellaneous [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------------- ** [2de] Writing of dates Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 From: Bruce Tober, octobersdad@reporters.net Josephine Bacon wrote: > Jane Lyle wrote in an example "leaving on May 5th", and not "5th May". > The Chicago Manual of Style may well have changed its mind as to what > is correct, if I americanized a British text (something I do at least > once a month) leaving the dates with the number first and the month > second (where the month is written out in full) and it were sent to > the publishers in the U.S., they would immediately count it as an > error. I've followed this thread for a while now and I have to say that in 45 years in the states virtually the only time I say 5 May as the date style was military usage. Standard on every magazine and newspaper I wrote for and/or worked for is May 5, 1998 or May 5 or May 5th. The same with numeric dates separated by slashes, ie 5/4/98 is correct and represents May 4, 1998 rather than 5 April 1998 as it does here. > So you can see how vitally important it is that there be one standard > for all dates. Agreed. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2di] Word breaks Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Have you ever shared an office with a pain-staking cow-orker? These two examples occurred in the Toronto Globe and Mail, not on the same date. If I remember correctly they were in the Business Section which is separately edited. David the pain-staking ibid +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dk] Favourable edit reviews [Offshoot of [2dg] Barzun reference] Date: Tues, 21 Apr 1998 From: Naomi Laredo, naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk Simon Cauchi wrote: > "Eleanor Gould Packard is a legendary copyeditor, credited with > having shaped the style of the New Yorker magazine, for which she > worked for fifty years. An article in praise of her appeared in the > NY Times newspaper, February 4 of this year." UK readers can find (probably) the same article in the Guardian of 28 Feb 98; it's by Bill Buford and entitled 'Goddess of Grammar'. He refers to Eleanor Gould as 'the [New Yorker] magazine's official grammarian' and says: 'a Gould proof has a sacred quality and is buried deep in the New Yorker archive once its function is completed'. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Josephine Bacon, 100270.3224@compuserve.com Nancy Mitford was so grateful to her copy editor, Joy Law, that she left her a house in Paris in her will! I am waiting for the queue to form for people to put me in their will!!! I remember being asked to copy edit a Jewish cookbook which was being written by a particularly obnoxious author whom I met socially. When I happened to mention that I had been approached to edit it, she informed me that her work did not need editing! Naturally, I did not get the job in the end. BTW, even the Bible contains some horrendous misprints and mistakes because clearly God did not have a copy editor. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dl] Proofreaders marks Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 From: Rosemary Killen, rkillen@idt.net Does anyone know of a site where I can download a list of standard proofreaders marks? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dm] Poetry Web sites Date: Tues, 21 Apr 1998 From: Jonathan Els, els@powerup.com.au Are there any sites on the Internet, that you know of, that feature good poetry or short stories by ordinary people, or by people who are not famous? This would be excellent as I enjoy reading peotry, but at the moment am sick of well known authors. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dn] Is "non" hyphenated in American English? Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Moira Vekony, Charnwood@vekony.demon.co.uk Please would someone give me an answer to this one: Is 'non' hyphenated or unhyphenated in American English? I have worked on texts written in US English for various publishers over the last couple of years, and there seems to be no concensus. One publisher states "in American English 'non' is unhyphenated except when in a double-hyphenated phrase" (thus adding to my confusion). Applying this rule to some work for another publisher (whose style sheet made no mention of 'non') earned me the ticking off that 'non' is hyphenated even in American English... Perhaps someone who owns a Chicago Manual of style can put me out of my misery? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2do] The old IBM statement Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk This is a long shot, but I'm constantly surprised by the abstruse knowledge displayed by EDline contributors, so here goes. A book I've been editing contained a parenthetical question by the author to himself, reading "(time to quote the old IBM statement?)". Naturally, I queried this, and the author replied: "I was going to quote the statement made in the 50's by IBM about the total needs of the world in terms of computing capacity, but i don't have the actual quote - it you can find it, it would be good to use." So - does anyone have details of the original quotation, or know offhand where I might be able to find it? It's not world-shaking -- only brownie points at stake - so don't do *too* much research ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2dp] Compiling an index Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Liz Atkinson, paulliz@cix.co.uk I've been asked to compile an index for a partwork. I've done quite a bit of work for this publisher before, both in-house and as a freelancer, but I must admit I don't have much experience of indexing (I did it once before, for a semi-academic book, and made quite a hash of it, in my opinion). Can anyone recommend any indexing software, or a book setting out the basics? I know that indexing should really be done by a professional indexer, but if I make a reasonable job of this one, then I might consider taking an indexing course, and have already written to the Society of Professional Indexers asking for some bumf. ---[4] Business matters ---------------------------------------------- ** [4aj] Irritants Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 From: Katie Lewis, katie@farnfilm.demon.co.uk Naomi Laredo wrote: > All I ask for is to be paid *on time* according to the terms > agreed between one business and another. This is the right of > every creditor, large or small. Yes, but then we have to make sure those terms are suitable for the (very) small businesses we are - we don't have the cashflow to lend other companies money, and if they take more than a reasonable time (30 days?) to pay, then that's what happening. I think this brings us back to the issues of standard terms and conditions - how many of us agree terms of this kind with our clients? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4al] Expenses Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 From: Dan A. Wilson, Editor@TopService.com To Hilary Powers's > As to printing, I don't do it, except for the odd page that I > absolutely have to see on paper. [ . . . ] there's plenty of > business of the type I prefer, which is to say all online, no > paper output required I'd like to add a small "Hear, Hear!" I took my editing business online exclusively a few years ago, stopped accepting paper a short while later, stopped accepting disks a short while after that, and would never retreat now from running an entirely paperless, Intenet-based, electronic editing service. Not only is the supply of clients more than adequate, but the demand for Internet-based service is growing much, much more rapidly than the pool of professionals both adequately wired and skilled to meet it. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 From: Ruth Thaler-Carter, rthalerc@aol.com Sara Hulse posted this query to the Copy Editing List and I answered it privately at that time, but had a couple other thoughts since then. This is a combination of both sets of reactions. I don't really understand what the "significant expenses" would be, unless you want to charge for the paper on which you might print downloads or the time it takes to do them; neither would be professional, in my humble opinion. In my experience, using e-mail and downloading, etc., *saves* me a lot of time and money. I charge for long-distance calls other than initial ones to discuss and accept a project (on writing assignments, I charge for all long- distance calls made to interview subjects, but not ones to my editors to discuss the project). I ask for the client's account for FedEx or UPS deliveries so I don't have to wait for reimbursement, and charge for any local and long-distance deliveries where that doesn't happen. I rarely charge back for postage, since most of those costs are simply professional business expenses. The only time I recalling doing so, it was to be reimbursed for mailing a big batch of press releases (printed out on the client's letterhead and envelopes). I sometimes charge for mileage on a project where it's the client's "fault" or the nature of the assigment that I must travel to it. If a client wants something printed, as opposed to just a paper copy of my work, I have the printer charge the client directly so my money isn't tied up waiting for reimbursement. I have no problem with providing a paper printout of what I do, although I recognize that a huge manuscript might be a problem. I would consider asking a client to cover the cost of such a printout at a few cents a page, comparable to the fee at a copy service. I don't charge clients for my e-mail service, which is on an unlimited account so time-intensive downloads don't cost me more than my regular service, nor for supplies such as paper - those are costs of doing business professionally. I hope it would go without saying that I include copies of receipts any time I do charge a client for expenses, and that I have discussed such expenses ahead of time to be sure the client is aware that I expect to be paid for them. Clients don't like surprises ... ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Hannah Hyam, hhyam@globalnet.co.uk I'm surprised that Hilary Powers doesn't routinely charge for phone calls and postage, or for the cost of sending and receiving emails (which presumably isn't covered by her flat-rate monthly fee). I charge for all postage and phone calls, including emails. At the sort of fees we are paid I don't think we should be expected to bear any additional costs, which can be quite considerable for a large or difficult job. As for printing, one publisher I work for pays 7 (GB) pence a page for producing a printout, and when I suggested this to another publisher they agreed quite happily. This more than covers the cost of paper and ink (and probably running costs as well). I also charge for photocopying (currently 4 pence a page), even though I have my own photocopier. If the individual charges are very small I lump them all together, otherwise I itemise them. No client of mine has ever objected to these charges. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4am] Citus Books Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Moira Vekony, Charnwood@vekony.demon.co.uk Last night, very late I might add, I took a phone call from a Dr Ash at Citus Books, apparently a new publishing company in London. He wanted me to proofread a rather large and very technical-sounding book. He claims to have obtained my details from Taylor and Francis (possible) and the whole conversation left me very flustered and feeling under pressure to agree to do the work. In the end I declined (before we even mentioned the subject of fees) because the whole thing just didnt feel right. Has anyone else had any dealings with this company? Was I right to trust my instinct or have I just cooked the goose that lays the golden eggs? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4an] Web proofreader required Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 From: Nancy Duin, nduin@dircon.co.uk I am a freelance editorial consultant working for Channel 4 Television in London. The part of C4 for which I work publishes numerous booklets and organises helplines to back-up programmes. It also has responsibility for various parts of the Channel 4 website -- www.channel4.com -- primarily reprints of free booklets, but also original copy (for example, see the Time Team pages under 'Knowing'). To maintain editorial quality, we would like to use a freelance proofreader to read through the copy before it comes 'live'. This individual would be sent a confidential url for the relevant pages, which could then be printed out and proofread. Any corrections would then be emailed to the website coordinator. We want this proofreader to be experienced, (obviously) to have access to the Internet and to be resident in the UK (for ease of payment). We would pay the NUJ proofreading rate of GBP13.35/hour. If this appeals to you, please send your CV to me at < nduin@dircon.co.uk > no later than 4 May 1998. Please do NOT send the CV as an attachment (too much risk of not being able to open it). I apologise in advance for not acknowledging receipt of any of the CVs (I expect to be innundated and I simply don't have the time). ---[5] Bookmarks ----------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 From: Iain Brown, i_brown@compuserve.com _The Bookseller_: < http://www.theBookseller.com > _Publishers Weekly_: < http://www.publishersweekly.com > At both these sites you can sign up for free daily/weekly e-mail newsletters. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 From: Dan A. Wilson, Editor@topservice.com An issue or two back, someone posted this URL for access to a trial run version of an online-accessible OED (http://www.oed.com/oetc.html) I get nothing but a 404 Not Found message there. Anybody have an update or correction? ---- [Moderators' note: This URL may be what you're looking for: < http://proto.oed.com/ > But note that this page says: The OED ONLINE is currently under development. Public access is not available: further information on databases, searches, and access fees will be published as soon as possible. You are welcome to look around and sign up for our mailing list user survey. There is some stuff to play with. It does have a link to Online Demonstration pages too.] ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------------- "Lines from the slushpile", no. 31 "Thank you, Robere--you and your gendarmes played a crucial role in the Gaullic drama of justice." +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Beguiling ideas about science", no. 2 The law of gravity says no fair jumping up without coming back down. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 From: David Penfold, penfold@eps-edge.demon.co.uk My father used to have (may still have) a book entitled 'Schoolboy Howlers' (which dates it somewhat). I can't remember very many, but one of my favourites, which may appeal to readers of this list, was something like: Define the Active and Passive voices: The active voice indicates action, for example 'He loved her', while the passive voice indicates passion, for example 'She loved him'. The book ran to about 100 pages, so there were a large number of entries, divided into subject areas. History, for example, included Mary Queen of Scots being married to Bovril! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Similes Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz "He was like that old dog Angus at the end of the _Odyssey_." (Cited from William Carpenter, _A Keeper of Sheep_, London, Abacus, 1995, p. 125.) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Everyone needs an editor", no. 17 Script treatments for the new film of _Lolita_, starring Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert, passed through the dexterous hands of David Mamet and Harold Pinter before Stephen Schiff was entrusted. Mamet explains why he was rebuffed: "I call up Dick Zanuck, the producer, and I say, 'What's the matter?' He says, 'You made the guy look like a paedophile'." [Source: _The Times_, Saturday, 25 April 1998, p.22] ---[7] Miscellaneous ------------------------------------------------- Think yourself lucky ... Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk ... you weren't Baudelaire's editor. A set of editorial proofs annotated by Charles Baudelaire to be auctioned this summer proves that the great poet was "also a pernickety pedant who drove his editors to distraction by continually revising his work", according to _The Times_ . Before he gave permission for publication, Baudelaire went through every page of _Les Fleurs du Mal_, making literally thousands of changes, adding marginal comments in a barely readable scrawl, and often changing his mind several times. In some cases, 10 or 11 versions of the same poem exist. As _The Times_ reports: "Baudelair could hardly see a comma, it appears, without crossing it out, reinstating it and then removing it again." His friend and editor, Auguste Poulet-Malassis - evidently a man of great patience - was driven to distraction by the editorial process, angrily scribbling at one point, "I believe, M Baudelair, that you are screwing around with me, which I do not in any way deserve." The proofs themselves were described by him as a clear illustration of "the author's perfectionism and scrupulousness, and ... the printers' patience". Ironically, when the poems did at last see the light of day, the offence they caused resulted in the distinguished poet being convicted of "outraging public decency and good morals" and being fined Fr300. Six poems were excised from the collection, and were not reinstated until 1949. [Source: Ben Macintyre, "Perfect proof of a great poet's pedantry", _The Times_, Saturday, 25 April 1998, p.16] ---[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 3.17 Next issue: 3 May 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=