I think that is a really good point about the overall decline in copyediting, especially at big houses. As I think you mentioned in Typo, publishers are reluctant to reduce marketing budgets or advances to authors so they are left to cut overhead by slashing production costs.

At the Delmar Publishing reception at our school last week I talked to one of the marketing people they had there who had flown down from New York. I asked her what in particular she did, given that “marketing” can cover a wide range of things. She said, “We put catalogs and marketing pieces together and work with authors and sales reps and the business folks. Basically, we work with everyone. As I tell folks, we’re really the engine that keeps this whole thing running.” Later on she told me (more or less), “Once you can sell one kind of book, it’s the same for selling any kind of book.”

I find this relatively problematic because there you have it for too many marketing departments: Books are just widgets like any other indiscriminate widget to be sold. On the other hand, as Jason Epstein said in Book Business, most people get into publishing–or at least USED to get into publishing–because they liked books to begin with, not because they have a marketing degree and want to sell whatever product is at hand.

But also, the final copyedit of the book was done by a wonderful man who also did the typesetting. He was, in fact, overworked as the main designer and copy editor at Soft Skull. And when Soft Skull sold to Counterpoint during the fiasco of Publishers Group West going bankrupt, he lost his job. This was right around the time that Typo was going to the printer.

That’s no excuse, but it is true that the error rate in Typo is the same or lower than a lot of books published by big houses–signaling an overall reduction in copyediting. I just have the advantage of an especially eagle-eyed audience on top of my own difficulties with English.

I’ve got a list of errata that folks have sent me here: http://agman.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=55

After dinner, I’ll be adding the one you listed here. It wasn’t already there. Sigh.

Actually, I value freelancers very much. Without the freelancers we have started to work with on a project we’re producing, I’d be overwhelmed with work, more than I already am, given the amount of hats I’m wearing here, including some marketing, at least as in the sense of editing our marketing material, and providing word-of-mouth promotion.

As a reader, though, it does throw me off to see so many errors in one publication. And it makes me wonder whether publishers are putting more time and money into marketing than in editing and design, whether the editors and designers are in-house or freelance.

When I was employed as a proofreader, not so much. And it wasn’t deliberate. It’s just that eight hours a day—or night, at one point, while I was finishing college during the day—six or even seven days a week, when I was really trying to sock some money away, the work starts to feel mechanical if you don’t love it. And that’s when quality can suffer.

Now maybe it’s different because I love doing book design and layout. Or maybe because, as a freelancer, I’d better keep on my toes if I hope to continue working. But working freelance, I know quality is uppermost on my mind, right there with timeliness.