July Question

Am I correct in assuming that you are as dissatisfied as I am that the editing and proofing process failed to change “effect” to “affect” on page 27, line 35 of Madness in Solidar?

While I would prefer all of my books to be error free, or at least typo-free, as would any author, that’s an unrealistic expectation for several reasons. First, as an author, I do occasionally make typographical errors, and since I submit my books in electronic format, the initial typographical error is mine, not someone else’s. Second, although that book was read before publication by two editors, a copy-editor, and a proof-reader, errors still occasionally occur. Third, as upsetting as such errors may be, they tend to represent a very small fraction of the words in a book. Madness in Solidar is 180,000 words long, roughly, and an error in one word still represents a typographical accuracy of 99.99945% on the word level.

I know that such typos can be upsetting, but all I can say is that a great number of people do their best, and I doubt very seriously that there are many books published totally free of typographical errors.

3 thoughts on “July Question”

  1. David says:

    I have heard that some publishers used know typographical errors to determine if someone was pirating the publication, in the days before digital formats.

  2. Charles Elkins says:

    I read the book when it came out and greatly enjoyed it. I don’t see typos since i make so many in my own written work which is always done on tight deadlines. If you get upset with typos, try audio books. The typos might not be so obvious and Mr. Modesitt’s books make great spoken stories to listen to as you walk.

  3. LauraA says:

    On that topic, I enjoyed “Treachery’s Tools,” and I wonder if you have a way for readers to submit the typos they noticed for correction in the paperback edition, as some authors do. Your books are remarkably free of typos in general, considering the rate at which you write them, and I’d like to contribute my help if that’s something you’d welcome. In “Treachery’s Tools,” I spotted 15 or so instances that you’d probably consider addressing if you had the opportunity. Thanks again for the enjoyable series!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *