Proof-reading - a dead art?

[Mr Ice-ni]

As one of the countless thousands of jockeys inspired by Ginger McCain and Red Rum to attempt to win the Grand National it was fitting that the first of my 29 visits to Aintree on National day was on April 31, 1973 when Red Rum caught Crisp in the dying strides.

Tut tut, Marcus Armytage.

John 

[LEO]

"Leap" year, or April fool!

[chessie]

Leo -

Neither surely - isn't it '...30 days hath September, April, June etc....'

So Leap Year wouldn't make a difference.  

Chessie

[LEO]

Chessie you are not reading properly!

"leap" as in steeplechase.

"april fool" as in ,April doesn't have a 31st!

[cooperlola]

It's a bit unfair to lay this at Marcus's door.  It's not his responsibility to do the proof reading as what the typesetters (or whatever they're called in these days of computers) input may bear no resemblance to what he wrote in the first place.  In fact, it should never be the responsibilty of the writer to do the proof reading as the closer one is to a piece, the more likely one is to miss any mistakes. It's the responsibilty of the paper the article appeared in (the Telegrope, I assume.) 

[Mr Ice-ni]

Coops, if he wants the credit he must take the blame. Plus of course he may have typed/written/said April 31 in the first place.

John

[Renaud]

Back in the mists of history, when I started life as a typographic designer, typesetting was a hot metal operation. The typesetters or compositors had to serve an apprenticeship lasting several years. They knew their craft. In the UK, these guys were individually delightful but as they were banded together in the NGA union they were collectively stroppy.

The proofreaders were superb, they knew when and why to use a hyphen, an en-rule or an em-rule. They could tell a bracket from a parenthesis. Their grammar and spelling was formidable. They enforced ‘style’ manuals so that the numerals one to ten were spelt out as words in text setting etc. and correct abbreviations and contractions enforced.

In practice, I would mark-up the copy and provide a layout. The typesetting would be then done quickly (usually too quickly), I would then see the galleys marked-up by the proofreaders pointing out the errors caused by speedy setting, I would add or subtract from the readers’ amendments then send the proofs back and in time get the final setting, then argue about the cost of ‘authors’ corrections’.

The NGA’s restrictive practices kept the profession all male, maintaining that a woman would not be strong enough to carry a forme of lead type. Ho hum.

Eddie Shah was the first to take on the NGA with computer typesetting, Rupert Murdoch followed and had the will to destroy the NGA’s monopoly. Newspapers began to let their journalists to directly input their copy. They still retained excellent proofreaders but it became much harder for them to police standards. However owing to the newspaper industry’s fast production requirements typos and literals still get through - as they always have done. Marcus Armytage is in distinguished company.

Hot metal, which had lasted four and a half centuries died in a three-year period and some strange devices took its place. Typesetting became cheaper but the notion of craft died along with hot metal and the NGA. Proofreaders seemed to evaporate.

Eventually magnificent phototypesetting (or computer typesetting) machines came into production and the notion of craft returned. Typesetting companies again employed proofreaders. Overnight QuarkXPress and the Mac rendered this technology obsolete. Everybody became their own typesetter - who needs proofreaders when you have Spell check? The standard of craft once again dived.

In the design business, clients now usually supply their copy in Word, Excel, or similar, designers then reformat it to their layouts - using much-improved versions of Quark or InDesign. Professional proofreading has become a freelance operation. In my experience, these excellent folk tend to quickly point out the typos and spelling mistakes and look after style. Then, with relish, they take their red biros to the grammar of the clients.

As always you get what you pay for.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Mr Ice-ni"]

Plus of course he may have typed/written/said April 31 in the first place.

John

[/quote]He might have done but then again it could just have been poorly transcribed (he could  have dictated it, for instance, although that's unlikely these days.)  The processes which things go through on their way to the printed page are many and varied and just because something carries your by-line, it doesn't mean you were responsible for what it ultimately looked like.

Plus all that Gus has outlined of course.

Besides, I'm rather like him.[:)]