Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvReadin
Quite true - I'm currently reading one where there are three different spellings of a character's name, and I'm finding it very annoying. But is it a case that editors aren't as good about catching mistakes, or that editing is being skipped altogether? I suspect that in at least some cases, it's the latter - for instance, in this same book, most of the mistakes are homonyms, which a spellchecker woudn't pick up, but any half-decent editor should.
TBH, I'm not entirely sure that's true any longer. IME, and as others have pointed out, publishers are becoming increasingly reluctant to pay for copyeditors, even though readers are becoming far more aware of the importance of editing and proofreading, if the increasing number of book reviews mentioning the dire spelling and grammar are anything to go by.
|
Do you have any basis for your statement that "publishers are becoming increasingly reluctant to pay for copyeditors"?
There's copyediting, and there's proofreading. Proofreading has become somewhat iffy. Plus there may well be greater time constraints for copyeditors, and a lot of subpar copyeditors.
But my objection was mostly to the notion that copyediting and proofreading are done or not done based on the author's star power or lack thereof.