--- David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > Andrew Jones <chaosasj at bellsouth.net> writes: > > > Philip Hart wrote: > > > >> > >> Isn't it "typos"? > > > Yes, yes it is. It also begs the question: Why didn't the editor pick > > up the typos? > > Same reason as for any other book; plus some extra for the complexity > of Paarfi's prose. I don't recall that I've ever read a book without > noticing a few typos. I didn't see a single typo in _Illumination_, by Terry McGarry. Of course she's a copyeditor. Steven's copyeditor sometimes. I proofread a 300-page science book in a few days one time--and I didn't notice a few typos. The one I remember is that one of our authors was listed as the discoverer of the human "teleomere". I don't think he was too please. (I mean "pleased".) Finding the last typo is like reaching absolute zero, but I'd still like it if publishers would spend a few extra days and maybe a few extra hundred dollars for a nice leisurely edit. What, they can't afford it? -- Jerry Friedman __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash