Read through ‘the book’ again today, thought I could be a bit ego and put in a few references to it in my thesis. But what do I discover? Loads of bloody mistakes! Some very minor ones (no commas, etc.) one really big one in the part of the book that I have nothing to do with (one of the pictures of the incunabula is wrong), but then… In the first sentence in one of my major sections, the editor has inserted a ‘not’, and thus making it negative! So, instead of “the majority of the extant manuscripts are from Vadstena” it’s now reading “the majority of the not extant manuscripts are from Vadstena”. What?!?! Who did that? I checked my original text as well as the proofs I got back, and no, that was not in there. Why would anyone insert that? And why am I never allowed to be happy?! Aaaargh! I guess it is a bit funny, though. At least it is an obvious mistake!
Strangest sight of the day: man dressed as a chicken walking down Euston road.
Annoying!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Editing! Can't live with it or without it.
At least you didn't make the error in regards of 'not'
Yeah on the Vatican reference, sounds very cool to me.
I agree on the editing. But when the editor passes your text on to several other people without telling you, then that's a big 'not yeah'. I just want to tell anyone who reads it that it's not my fault!
Bahh! I've already crossed the "inte" out of my copy. It is an obvious mistake - and obviously not your. Fou' geddabaod it!
(And the pope likes Ingela! The pope likes Ingela! Yeeeah!)
Post a Comment