Black Static

It seems to me that with nearly every issue of Black Static I'm taking up cudgels against one publisher or another for poor proofreading, and yet when I look around at what other reviewers are doing, with a few exceptions such as Stephen Theaker at TQF, it appears that practically nobody else thinks it's worth mentioning.

Whether this is because we've reached the point where it isn't considered necessary for a writer to be able to spell, or simply that the reviewers themselves either aren't up to the job of spotting errors or don't regard them as of any significance is open to conjecture.

As far as the first possibility goes, I don't think there's much to be said - it's a lunatics taking over the asylum scenario, and in true grue horror film terms the only option available is to pick up a shotgun and blow away as many of the nasties as you can before they take you down. Reviewing choices are another matter though, and while I can't comment on the literacy of individual reviewers (though reading their work will often provide enlightenment), I can and will address some of the common or garden reasons that are broached as to why typos should be ignored.

Everyone does it

Yes, this is true, though surprisingly back in the days before we had Word and other technological aids, books managed to be error free more often than not (I'm an old fogey - indulge me). While I berate publishers for mistakes, I also make them, as do you, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and perhaps even Lynne Truss has her moments. The point though is that there are levels of competency, and common sense should rule in determining a response to each individual case. For a reviewer to point out that there is an error on page 39 of an otherwise 'clean' 800 page novel is being unduly pedantic, but equally it's remiss of the reviewer to not mention it when a book has typos on every third or fourth page. My own personal rule of thumb is that five or less typos gets a free pass, between six and twenty five rates criticism, and anything higher than that, unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. I've seen other books from the publisher and know that the volume under consideration is an exception rather than the rule), then I cordially suggest that the publisher take up some other form of business, or at the least hire a proof-reader for whom correct spelling isn't anything more than an app they can't be bothered to download.

Spelling isn't everything

Absolutely, and that's why reviewers don't rate a book solely on spelling, but take into account a whole bundle of other stuff, such as plot, characterisation, prose etc. But this isn't an either/or situation: we don't make some imaginary trade-off where readers get an exciting story only if we're prepared to accept sub-standard spelling and grammar. We can, and should, demand both, and if the writer's spelling and grammar aren't up to standard but the work has other merits, then it's up to publisher's editor to work with the writer until any errors are eliminated, not start bleating about how they should get a free pass for being lazy or incompetent just because the work is 'exciting' or 'controversial' or... pick a buzz word. Many fine books have been undermined, simply because nobody was able or could be bothered to do the job of proofreading properly.

Readers don't care

Again, this is true, albeit not across the board. Many readers get so wrapped up in a story that their eyes just skim over mistakes, correcting subconsciously, or maybe they do see the errors but are prepared to live with them because this is a writer they really like or the story has especially gripped them. Equally, there are other readers for whom typos are an issue, a distraction that will throw them out of the world of the story. The reviewer's job is to provide information about a book so that potential readers can make informed choices on how to spend their time/money, and a vital part of that information is the standard of proofreading. The reader may very well shrug and say 'Who cares?' However that's a choice they should make for themselves, not have made for them by reviewers arbitrarily deciding to not mention typos.

The code of silence

This usually applies only in the case of the small press and is the one that annoys me the most, the idea that errors shouldn't be mentioned out of some misguided sense of small press solidarity, that those who do call publishers on their mistakes are somehow letting the side down.

Recently I saw a reviewer's work criticised for 'snide comments about the small press', and as far as I could see the 'justification' for this attack was that he'd stated (not in a snide way at all) that in his experience small press books had more typos in them than those from the mainstream. I'm sorry, but this is the simple truth, and anyone who denies it has their head buried so deep in the sand that they're probably drilling for oil. It's a truth we ignore to our cost. When a punter buys a small press title after reading a glowing review and then finds that it's littered with errors, at best they may decide the reviewer is as lacking in basic word skills as the writer, and at worst they may conclude that yes, this really is par for the course as far as small press work goes, the best that can be expected, so that future sales are lost as a result.

The important thing to note is that, while the small press in general may not be as good at eliminating errors as their mainstream counterparts (given the different resources that's hardly surprising, and please note that I am not claiming mainstream books are error free), some publishers are much better than others. From memory, titles that I've seen from Gray Friar, Ex-Occidente, Pendragon, Elastic Press, Atomic Fez and a few others, have been as close to error free as can reasonably be expected, my five or less rule of thumb, while many other publishers have plenty of room to improve (euphemism). Reviewers who choose not to mention typos do a disservice to those publishers who make the effort to get things right.

The people who are really letting the small press down are those who release poorly proofread books and those who collude in their incompetence by turning a blind eye to those errors. Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, is a philosophy that may well work for monkeys, but one with which reviewers who are sincere about doing their jobs should have no truck.

Of course we'll now probably have a review of Black Static in which Andy gets castigated for a dozen or more errors, so I should point out that I only proof the stories in Interzone. And even if we are crap at proofreading, that doesn't excuse anyone else.

For a bonus point - anybody notice the error on the front page on your way in?