An insight into the heart of a publisher

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it's the attitude of the publisher on the back end that is offensive. instead of "oh my! terribly sorry!" he comes out on the offensive telling people that they are "silly" to be offended. I completely get that it is a silly little mistake. his attitude makes it not silly and not little

They are silly to be offended. IMO, of course.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

They are silly to be offended. IMO, of course.

I agree, mountains and molehills spring to mind (usual disclaimer about this being just my humble opinion applies).

[HarryT]

BBC News article here.

Says that the publisher has pulped and reprinted the 7000 copies that they held, but will not be recalling the copies of the book held by bookshops.

I suspect that the version of the book with the misprint will become a "collector's item" in the future.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by TGS

I don't really see how anyone could mistype "people" instead of "pepper", - unless it was some kind of Freudian slip - and since both would be recognised by a spellchecker as legitimate words I don't buy that explanation either. If the first or the second "p" of pepper were to be mistyped with an "o" an English language spellchecker would suggest "pepper" but would not suggest "people".

I recently mistyped "erroneous" as "errononeous". My spell-checker's first choice, was correct, but its second was "nonferrous", followed by"peritoneums" and "heterogeneous". Don't ask me how it came up with any of those, because I couldn't tell you. Given the behavior of spell-checkers, which often have the correct replacement several options down in the list, it's quite possible for them to put in all sorts of weird stuff if you tell them to auto-correct a document.

Never, ever underestimate the power of the spell-checker. And remember, also, that different spell-checkers use different rules, so just because yours doesn't change some given typo to "people" doesn't mean that some other spell-checker doesn't.

Also, I believe the publisher said the typo was silly, not the people who got all worked up about it.

[abookreader]

Acceptable corporate response to an incident is a far different matter than everyday life. If he would have just gave it a "horrific mistake, we're sorry - anybody who complains will be given a replacement copy."

It would have never been a news story.

To me it is much more astounding that a CEO wouldn't know that ... than it is that somebody could miss people/pepper mix-up in a spell check.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by abookreader

Acceptable corporate response to an incident is a far different matter than everyday life. If he would have just gave it a "horrific mistake, we're sorry - anybody who complains will be given a replacement copy."

It would have never been a news story.

To me it is much more astounding that a CEO wouldn't know that ... than it is that somebody could miss people/pepper mix-up in a spell check.

"horrific mistake"?!? It's a typo in a book, why would anybody describe it as an "horrific mistake"?

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I recently mistyped "erroneous" as "errononeous". My spell-checker's first choice, was correct, but its second was "nonferrous", followed by"peritoneums" and "heterogeneous". Don't ask me how it came up with any of those, because I couldn't tell you. Given the behavior of spell-checkers, which often have the correct replacement several options down in the list, it's quite possible for them to put in all sorts of weird stuff if you tell them to auto-correct a document.

Never, ever underestimate the power of the spell-checker. And remember, also, that different spell-checkers use different rules, so just because yours doesn't change some given typo to "people" doesn't mean that some other spell-checker doesn't.

Also, I believe the publisher said the typo was silly, not the people who got all worked up about it.

Although it's possible, my informal testing suggests it would take a rather unnatural deformity to convince a typical spell-check that the writer intended "people" instead of "pepper".

Rather than assuming it was some joke played by someone in the chain, which seems unlikely to me as it could be more effectively implemented elsewhere, I suspect that the original writer mistyped while having a conversation or while listening to something. I have myself done this numerous times, possibly even with pepper/people.

In my humble opinion, the press have been jumping on this a little too aggressively, hoping to spark some outrage.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

"horrific mistake"?!? It's a typo in a book, why would anybody describe it as an "horrific mistake"?

Maybe "horrific" is over egging it, maybe not. But there seems to be no acceptance that anyone might be offended. Yes, the mistake might have been silly - but for all its silliness it might well have caused offence. An apology for that would have both been appropriate and killed the story.

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

"horrific mistake"?!? It's a typo in a book, why would anybody describe it as an "horrific mistake"?

I'm of the opinion that any published recipe calling for a dash of minced human is indeed .... quite horrific.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by abookreader

Acceptable corporate response to an incident is a far different matter than everyday life. If he would have just gave it a "horrific mistake, we're sorry - anybody who complains will be given a replacement copy."

It would have never been a news story.

Yeah.

I'd have been offended if I came across that in a book, and it's not as if Australia is a land of peace and harmony when it comes to race relations. But OK, if it's a genuine mistake and they're fixing it, fair enough.

It sounds like Bob Sessions is a bit of an idiot, frankly. Trying to pretend it's not really a problem is the worst possible thing to do.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by TGS

Maybe "horrific" is over egging it, maybe not. But there seems to be no acceptance that anyone might be offended. Yes, the mistake might have been silly - but for all its silliness it might well have caused offence. An apology for that would have both been appropriate and killed the story.

Personally, I just can't see how anybody could have such a low offence threshold as to be offended by a silly misprint in a recipe book.

The publisher, again, in my opinion, deserves a lot of kudos for refusing to pander to the kneejerk complainers and telling it as it is. He may be naive, and a reply like the one you suggested may well have been more 'sensible', but I find his honesty refreshing.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by abookreader

I'm of the opinion that any published recipe calling for a dash of minced human is indeed .... quite horrific.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/da...sh_78187.shtml

1 swede, peeled and diced
1 tsp salt
50g/2oz butter
salt and freshly ground black pepper
Method

1. Place the swede in a pan of cold water and sprinkle in 1 tsp of salt.
2. Bring to the boil and reduce the heat to a slow simmer.
3. Cook for 10 to 15 minutes or until tender. Drain the swede and return to the pan.
4. Mash with a potato masher, stir in the butter, salt and freshly ground black pepper, to taste, and serve.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Personally, I just can't see how anybody could have such a low offence threshold as to be offended by a silly misprint in a recipe book.

I quite accept that you can't see how anybody would be offended - but I also accept that some people genuinely were offended. There is no contradiction between you not seeing how something can be the case, and it actually being the case.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/da...sh_78187.shtml

1 swede, peeled and diced
1 tsp salt
50g/2oz butter
salt and freshly ground black pepper
Method

1. Place the swede in a pan of cold water and sprinkle in 1 tsp of salt.
2. Bring to the boil and reduce the heat to a slow simmer.
3. Cook for 10 to 15 minutes or until tender. Drain the swede and return to the pan.
4. Mash with a potato masher, stir in the butter, salt and freshly ground black pepper, to taste, and serve.

The question is, how does it taste? Swedes are known as very healthy, clean-living people after all

[Ea]

Originally Posted by TGS

I quite accept that you can't see how anybody would be offended - but I also accept that some people genuinely were offended. There is no contradiction between you not seeing how something can be the case, and it actually being the case.

But why should they apologise if the error was completely un-intentional?