Let me begin by saying that word errors (typos, grammar mistakes, misspellings) can happen to anyone. As an editor, I am still embarrassed by some of mine, including a few on this blog. I once thought I would lose my job at Business Week when I wrote an inaccurate caption (I didn’t). And then there was, “The mountain peaked through the clouds.”
That said, ever since I began studying history, I have noticed proofreading errors, more than in my past reading. I’m not talking about esoteric archival footnotes, just normal words.
After being bothered by this for awhile, I started making a list. For example, I read “shielings,” not “shirelings,” “Homan’s” not “Homans,’” “few woman,” not “few women,” “countries,” not “counties,” “sixty” not “sixth,” “Repreinted,” not “Reprinted,” “pampleteer,” not “pamphleteer,” Athansian, not Athanasian, Michael Berklin, not Michael Berlin, and “within and outwith” (unless that is a British expression I’m unfamiliar with).
I’m not alone; a professor had marked the typos in a book he lent me about nineteenth-century France.
In the past, was I reading too fast to see the errors? Too superficially? Is there a difference in the level of proofreading scrutiny of popular books and academic books? I can’t help but wonder whether narrow academic publications, no matter how prominent, are negligent. [1] Perhaps the writing is dull and the proofreader is bored, or perhaps no one complains.
Well, that’s one word problem I’ve come across. Here is another.
Compare these two paragraphs. The first is from a well-known book about adult education, the second from a recent book about architecture.
At least in the case of the YMCA, vocational education arose without the benefit of advertising and directly in response to the aspirations of members. The fundamental motive behind this and indeed nearly all forms of adult vocational education in the late nineteenth century can be summarized by the phrase “job improvement.”[2] —Joseph F. Kett, Pursuit of Knowledge under Difficulties (Stanford University Press, 1994), p. 243.
The YMCA’s vocational education arose without the benefit of advertising and directly in response to the aspirations of members. The fundamental motive behind nearly all forms of adult vocational education in the nineteenth century can be summarized by the phrase “job improvement.”—A recent book on nineteenth-century architecture
The author gives credit to Kett in an endnote but puts only two words in quotation marks—the same words Kett put in quotes. I discovered this similarity by reading one of these books and realizing I had read virtually the same words the day before.
According to writing guides such as the Turabian Manual for Writers, this too-close following of language is on the brink of plagiarism, if not plagiarism itself. A second example from the same book on architecture:
Not surprisingly, the rise of correspondence schools also coincided with the proliferation of state licensing requirements for a variety of occupations.
And from the Kett book:
In fact, the rise of correspondence schools coincided with the proliferation of state licensing requirements in a wide variety of occupations. [3]
Again, the author gives credit to Kett in an endnote, so there is no illegal intent. But it was wrong, and the author should have recognized that.
However, there’s a cost to being scrupulously careful about paraphrasing. Sometimes the writer really says it better than you can. [4] So if you paraphrase, you feel forced to sprinkle your essay with quotation marks (to be sure you are accurately reflecting the ideas of the writer). And that makes your writing less dignified than a historian’s should be. Darn!
[1] To be fair, I did recently find a typo in a “Mitch Rapp” thriller (the character was created by Vince Flynn, but the author of this book is Kyle Mills).
[2] Kett, Pursuit of Knowledge, 243.
[3] Kett, 235-236.
[4] Try paraphrasing the brilliant nineteenth-century writer Frédéric Bastiat.
P.S. The examples of almost identical text you cited is certainly plagiarism. Plagiarism from Latin for kidnapping is still theft when the kidnapper leaves a note saying I did it. I suspect this kidnapper/plagiarizer was hoping no one would notice the note and bring him to court.
The rule of thumb should be:
1. If the original writer says it better than anyone else, then quote that writer verbatim in quotes.
2. If one can or needs to abridge the original text and can paraphrase to improve clarity or eloquence, then, giving credit to the source, go ahead.
Otherwise why don’t I just change a few words here and there in War and Peace, change the title and at the end credit Tolstoy with inspiration?
“The mountain peaked through the clouds.” And maybe it did when the clouds were low. But then I like to play with words and double entendre. (Sorry, not allowed to use italics here for foreign words.)
Perhaps one is not allowed to play when writing history.
I’ve always been thankful for sharp eyed editors since I get bored re-reading my own work. Reading others, I can’t say that in magazine and book publishing errors appear any more frequently now than in earlier decades. I suppose someone could or someone has done a rigorous study of past and present editing quality. If not, then perhaps academia is already suffering from rigor mortus.
Jane, as a printer’s daughter often employed as a copy editor, I tell you this is nothing new and has been upsetting me for years. I see errors of this sort in everything I read, including popular fiction and books from the MOST prestigious publishers.
My reaction is sometimes rage that they don’t hire ME as a copy editor. “Doesn’t anyone proof this?” I ask myself.
Spellcheck may add to the errors.
Best, Cynthia
Case in point. Greg Rehmke found a typo in this piece and I corrected it. Thanks, Greg!