Jiituomas ([info]jiituomas) wrote,
@ 2009-03-19 22:32:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current music:Dimmu Borgir - Enthrone Darkness Triumphant

KP book scepticism.
As my more frequent readers know, I have a bad habit of complaining. I am extremely loyal to people I trust, but if I encounter a point where I feel that my trust has been misused, I turn extremely bitter. This is one of those.

I have been watching the development of the KP 2009 book. The idea is very good - a light approach to the field, with less academia. Some people involved with the project, however, have been less than professional with their work, it seems. For example, a friend's "proofread" article, which had traveled through two editors after the so-called proofreading, contained 43 new double-spaces, as well as numerous new grammar errors. It's almost as if a certain P.B. is back...

And I have not received a view-copy of mine yet. It's as if the book just is not a priority. In any way. I know it's secondary priority for many, a novelty item that may not see much use. But this time the image given to some authors is even worse, it's "total disrespect". I hope the editors will prove me wrong (and withhold payment to at least one _totally incompetent_ asshole).

On the upside, several other facets of KP seem to be shaping up extremely well. And people in charge of those (especially T.K.E.) have done a marvelous job so far. I expect to enjoy the event a lot.


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]tundra_no_caps
2009-03-19 10:48 pm UTC (link)
Heh, I thought about your last post earlier, and thought about the fact you may appear to some as the "Grouchy one about RPG design."

:)

Let's hope all will be good in the world.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jiituomas
2009-03-20 05:00 am UTC (link)
My problem is that a botched editorial job, or a low-quality article, makes us all look bad. If an editor ruins the text quality of my paper, most people will think I made the errors, not the editor or a proofreader.

It would therefore be wiser for me not to write for non-reviewed books anymore, but it just doesn't seem right to do so. If I can contribute in some way, I usually will, even if it leads to situations like this one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tundra_no_caps
2009-03-20 07:21 am UTC (link)
Of course, my comment was in good humour.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]heiccu
2009-03-20 05:32 am UTC (link)
At the point when you complain about it on the internet, it might be good to send your viewpoints to organisers (Trine Lise and others) as well, by mail or by kp-forum. If something is wrong it probably won't be fixed if they don't know it's broken.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]jiituomas
2009-03-20 06:33 am UTC (link)
I have tried contacting the person in charge of my own paper, to see if it's been similarly butchered, with no response. Other people dealing with the project have been given feedback, too.

At this close to the final deadline, and after seeing the way things have been handled behind the scenes, I have intentionally chosen to make a public complaint here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Reply from the editors
(Anonymous)
2009-03-20 08:12 am UTC (link)
Dear Tuomas,

I received your mail this morning. We are aware of problems with Castellani's article (which I assume is the one you're talking about), and are going through it again. I believe what might have happened is that the proofreading team (we've hired a professional company) have switched proofreader along the way. I will look into this immediately. I'll also make sure you receive your article for a final check.

Since we've assigned separate editors to each article, I do not know the details of every article. However, standard procedure is to send the proofread version to the authors for a final check. This has been done for at least five writers that I'm aware of, who all accepted the proofreaders' remarks. These were, however, done at an earlier stage, which is the basis for my belief that the team is using a new proofreader.

Thanks for complaining, and I mean that. We want the book to be the best we can make. This is exactly the reason why we've put a substantial part of our book budget into professional proofreading. We have the book on high priority.

- Matthijs

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Reply from the editors
(Anonymous)
2009-03-20 08:47 am UTC (link)
Follow-up: Your article isn't back from the proofreaders yet. When it does, we'll be checking it very closely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Reply from the editors
[info]jiituomas
2009-03-20 08:51 am UTC (link)
Yes, we are indeed talking about Godfather's paper. I have read three major versions of it, and seen the differences.

Reading the "proofread" text, it was obvious the edits were made by a professional, but a professional who changed several meanings of sentences, turned flowing text into bureaucratic, gender-neutral office text, and made galring new errors in both typing and grammar.

Furthermore, she had absolutely no knowledge of the terminology used (both larp and other), and obviously no interest in checking it out. She showed a total lack of respect for the subject of the paper, did only language-based editing, and not a good job even at that. Given the precarious nature of some very loaded terms in larp discussions, letting someone ignorant of those make heavy changes to the text this close to publication is highly irresponsible. (I am especially disappointed that you really considered the option of letting Even approve the proofer's changes without sending the last version to Andrea. Thank goodness E chose otherwise.) One very significant part of professionalism in proofing and translation is the ability to preserve the intent and content of the original. This was not done. I strongly suggest you discuss payment for proofing services in this case again.

And I do appreciate the effort, but I personally think that in a specialist field like this, outsourcing proofread is a very bad move. That, the occasional long breaks in information, and, quite frankly, the fuck-up of 2005, make me quite paranoid with text quality. Readers tend to blame the authors, not the editorial staff, for any errors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…