An insight into the heart of a publisher

[PhishStyx]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Typos always offend me if I paid hard-earned money for a book - just shows the publisher doesn't care about the customer.

See, my first thought upon seeing the article was "wow, now that's sure to become a collector's item!" I agree, the publisher probably should have been perfect and not laughed at the darkly unintentionally humorous typo, but stuff happens, and there are plenty of things I find far more offensive. Like the notion that Italian prosecutors get to double-dip on sentencing, that people in the US are raging about children getting health insurance rather than pistols in their Cheerios, that the US having a black president is grounds for violence against the government, and so on.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I can't figure out if you lot just don't get it or you are being deliberately obtuse.

I'm deliberately being sarcastic due to *ahem* people who are intent on making a huge mountain out of a molehill.

Originally Posted by kidlekitten

it's NOT the mistake, it's the callous attitude of the publisher.

Uh huh. Full quote:

"We're mortified that this has become an issue of any kind, and why anyone would be offended, we don't know," head of publishing Bob Sessions is quoted as saying by the Sydney newspaper.

Nice of you to drop the first half of the quote, by the way.

Bob Sessions is, as far as I can tell, just an upper level exec at Penguin Australia. To act like the second half of a single sentence is a smoking gun of the heartlessness of an entire publishing company is slightly ridiculous, and strikes me as an interpretation by someone who is intent on badmouthing either the individual, the company, or publishers in general.

And of course, in the "actions speak louder than words" department, they recalled and destroyed all the books they can and offer to replace any copy with the erroneous text.

It's a non-issue. Period.

[recluse]

If it's a non issue, why do you keep coming back and pouring fuel on the fire? It's immature behavior. Makes it hard to take you seriously.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by charleski

Some of the replies on this thread are mind-bogglingly naive. You lot seriously need to get out more and realise that taking offence to something isn't an act, it's a a reaction to the fact that words have consequences.

Actually, when you get right down to it, it is not a reaction but a choice. One chooses to be offended or not.

Just as if one is spat on one can choose to get angry about it or one can choose to laugh it off.

Most people would rather be at the mercy of of their "uncontrollable" impulses though as that makes life so much easier to live.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by TGS

But you may be wrong on that.

Of course I may be, I was merely stating my opinion.

Originally Posted by TGS

The mistake may have been both silly and offensive in itself - in that it offended some people. If it did offend someone then the CEO's response is also offensive since it seems to suggest that anyone who is offended by such a "silly" mistake is somehow wrong to be offended.

My point being that the mistake is either offensive or it isn't. The attitude of the CEO is either offensive or it isn't. The attitude of the CEO does not make the mistake offensive if it wasn't offensive to begin with.(as the OP suggested it did)

Originally Posted by TGS

It may be a bit of a stretch but the way I understood kindlekitten's original point was that if the CEO cares so little about how what his company does affects people then how can we expect that company to take account of its customers when it comes to ebook pricing.

And I took the line "these are the folks that we expect to be reasonable over ebook prices!" to be a suggestion that because this one CEO fails to take a misprint in a book seriously, all people in charge of ebook pricing are somehow to be suspected of being unreasonable. A pretty long bow to draw in my opinion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by charleski

It's irrelevant that it was a typo.

No, it is not irrelevant.

If you and I are stuffed onto an overcrowded subway car and I accidentally elbow you, it's just that: an accident. Happens all the time. If, on the other hand, I walk up to you and deliberately elbow you because I don't like how you part your hair, that's assault and battery. It is extremely relevant whether it was in fact a deliberate act to cause offense, an ignorant act by someone who didn't think it would cause offense, or a freaking typo that probably no human being even looked at before the books went to press. And it was #3.

Anyone who thinks a recipe that calls for grinding up and eating black people isn't offensive obviously thinks that singing 'Shoot the Boer' isn't offensive either and couldn't possibly cause any harm. What could be offensive about shooting goats?

When someone says "If you think X, you obviously think Y" any hope of civil conversation has ended.

If it had been a recipe that called for grinding up and eating black people, yeah, it would have been offensive. But it wasn't. It was a recipe that called for grinding up and eating black PEPPER. Not people. Pepper. First, all issues of typos aside, "freshly-ground beef" would not make sense in that particular recipe either. Nor any other sort of meat. That right there should be enough to know that "people" was an error, and the recipe was not meant to suggest that people of any color be eaten. Second, if it had been intentional, there are a lot of words they could have used other than "people" to make sure they were as offensive as they wanted to be. Seriously, have you ever heard a racist say "black people"? They've got plenty of other words they prefer, most of which would get them punched in the mouth in polite society.

In short, if someone was trying to (for some strange reason) make that recipe offensive, they did a pretty poor job of it.

"Ayasab' amagwala" is not the result of a typo. It is a song written with the specific intent of conveying a specific message. It's intended to create animosity, and if taken literally, to encourage violence. That's not a reaction to what someone might possibly interpret it as -- it was written for that exact purpose. It's no more accidental than the "Horst Wessel Lied" is, and no less offensive. There is no comparison. Trying to equate the two -- deliberately inflammatory and provocative lyrics compared to a typo that was ridiculous in context -- does not make the people who disagree with you look wrong.

Some of the replies on this thread are mind-bogglingly naive. You lot seriously need to get out more and realise that taking offence to something isn't an act, it's a a reaction to the fact that words have consequences.

"Words have consequences" ... today's replacement, apparently, for "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Taking offense is an act of volition. It took me a very, very long time, and a great deal of pain, to learn that. (note: it's a bad idea to assume any sort of default background for any random forum poster; you're likely to be wrong) It took me a long time, but eventually I learned that I, and I alone, am in charge of what goes on in my mind. If I let an enemy upset me, then I let him control me. And I choose to not give marionette strings to people I detested. My life has been a lot happier since I cut those strings.

The big problem with the idea that abject apologies must be made any time someone of any of a number of groups takes offense at anything, no matter how innocent the cause, is this: It builds the perception that anyone who appears to be a member of such a group is weak, fragile, and lesser in some way than "regular" people (that is, the person doing the perceiving) -- much like my acquaintance in college, who simultaneously acquired countless empty apologies and a reputation as a flake. When someone feels that they have to watch everything they say around someone identified with some group, or have to pre-emptively apologize for any slip-up, that reinforces the sense of "other". There's "us", the regular people who can just talk, and there's "them", who have to be treated specially. That's divisive. And aren't we divided enough already?

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by recluse

If it's a non issue, why do you keep coming back and pouring fuel on the fire? It's immature behavior. Makes it hard to take you seriously.

The typo is a non-issue; it's the reaction to it that's the issue.

Also, you know how a compulsive gambler will bet on two water drops running down a window if there's nothing else to bet on? I'm a compulsive debater.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by TGS

Yes, an offensive one.

Grow up.

[recluse]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Grow up.

Forget what I said earlier about a lack of maturity! This is the posting of a staggeringly brilliant mind! Such a mastery of language, obviously the input of a true genius. I am in awe.......that his mommy lets him play on the grownup's computer. All by himself!

[Worldwalker]

Might I point out that we seem to be drifting away from the issue and into unproductive territory?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

I believe being an high-level executive at a large corporation qualifies you for jerk status, regardless of how politically correct you try to be. It's just the way of things.

I don't think he was callous enough.

well there ya' go!!!

Originally Posted by TGS

What does that mean?

*elbow elbow* he's cool, just a dry sense of humour!

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Might I point out that we seem to be drifting away from the issue and into unproductive territory?

JIMINY FRIGGING CRICKETS!!!!!!!!! I was TRYING to get you guys to look at the COLD UNCARING HEART of a publisher vis-a-vis how they respond the stimulis outside their control (ie: ebooks). NOT get into a major battle!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

... Full quote:

"We're mortified that this has become an issue of any kind, and why anyone would be offended, we don't know," head of publishing Bob Sessions is quoted as saying by the Sydney newspaper.

Nice of you to drop the first half of the quote, by the way...

It's a non-issue. Period.

Yes the first half of that quote—which shows that Bob Sessions is not mortified over the error, but rather mortified that anyone should have taken offense—perhaps should have been quoted as well. I fail to see how that adds to your defense of him.

It could have very well been a non-issue, had a simple statement been made that the typo was inadvertent, and was being corrected. Instead, Sessions showed remarkable insensitivity for someone in his position by choosing to belittle the feelings of those who were offended. It's good that those other things were done by way of response, but it was a mistake to attack those who were offended. A human mistake; a retaliation against a perceived attack on his company, perhaps; but a mistake nonetheless. That doesn't makes him evil, but does reveal that there is an area of his life that needs work. We all have them, and he should admit his error and cut his losses.

[PhishStyx]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

JIMINY FRIGGING CRICKETS!!!!!!!!! I was TRYING to get you guys to look at the COLD UNCARING HEART of a publisher vis-a-vis how they respond the stimulis outside their control (ie: ebooks). NOT get into a major battle!

Yeah, don'tcha hate when people don't take your spin at face-value.

[dmaul1114]

Amazed this generated into such outrage here. Saw threads on this in a couple other forums I frequent and there was really no bickering.

When you boil it down nothing really needs to be said other than it was just an inadvertent typo and people would have to be wound way too tight to get upset over it. But at the same time, the publisher could have handled it much better from a PR stand point by just saying it was a typo and apologizing for the mistake. I can say people are would to tight over it, but the publisher shouldn't for PR reasons.

[gwynevans]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

choosing to belittle the feelings of those who were offended.

Now that's an 'interesting' view of things...

I do wonder how much of a mis-match there is between the 'US viewpoint' of the statement and the 'AUS viewpoint', as I certainly don't think they're all that similar despite the superficially common language.