History 101 Fail

[Edward]

Grove Atlantic's web page for James Holland and Al Murray's upcoming book, Victory 45: The End of the War in Six Surrenders includes a pretty fundamental error.

"In May 1944 and then again in August and early September, the seemingly endless World War II finally came to a close in six dramatic surrender ceremonies, four in Europe and the last two in Japan."

https://groveatlantic.com/book/victory-45/

I realize that two of Mr. Holland's earlier books are Normandy '44 and Cassino '44 and that they are included on the cover but some basic proof reading is expected.

Note: I own many of James Holland's books on WWII.

[edwest2]

The bane of all publishers is a lack of proofreading. ALL elements need to be reviewed. Everything. Of course, the book itself requires a minimum of four editors/proofreaders. These should be knowledgeable about the contents. Some think it's primarily about spelling and grammar. Partly. Errors creep in when dates aren't checked or when names are misspelled. As a working book editor, I'm required to look over all copy related to the book. It's errors like this that affect a publisher's reputation.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Edward

some basic proof reading is expected.

Note: I own many of James Holland's books on WWII.

The same James Holland who wrote twice in his Battle of Britain book that a Stuka crew experienced negative-g when pulling out of a dive.

[Chris Goss]

Proof reading is a bane to authors (in my opinion). You become word blind. My KG 40 book has been proof read at least 3 times by English speakers and twice by a German speaker not including myself and still mistakes slip through. However, major mistakes are inexcusable

[FalkeEins]

how did this 'classic' from Kagero get through? And on the front cover too...

[kaki3152]

Unfortunately, to properly proofread a history book, one needs to be knowledgeable on the subject. Even a book written by Experts in the field contain errors, which should have been caught at the onset. No real solution. I always read my books thoroughly and write corrections in pencil on the side

[Edward]

I know well from writing my own manuscripts and proof reading drafts from other authors how easy it is to make a mistake or typo. Chris is so right when he mentions becoming "word blind". You must have one or two outsiders read over your text and captions. I would expect that large publishers still have professional editors on staff who have a critical eye.

Mistakenly writing 1944 instead of 1945 is pretty easy to do. I certainly don't expect that authors James Holland or Al Murray erroneously wrote "May 1944" instead of May 1945 in their manuscript for the book.

The team from Grove Atlantic that created this web page is responsible. It is unfortunate that no one caught this fundamental error for a book about the end of the war. (yes, I sent a message to Grove Atlantic yesterday).

The shocking thing is that this summary serves as the template for pages at mega-distributors like Amz. The same error currently appears at their page for Victory 45: The End of the War in Six Surrenders.

[AndyMa]

My own personal bugbear is finding that the "serial numbers" part of a book has clearly not been checked by someone with a particular interest in such things. Invalid serials, the same serial for two (or even three) losses without any comment, etc etc. I quite accept that typos can be made, but running (for example) a loss list past a "numbers man" might help considerably.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Personally I think one should stick to have one or two friends (interested in the subject) but not necessarily experts in the topic itself

I have written a couple of books myself and had great help from my wife, checking spelling, syntax grammar and such things. That way you get a much more readable book/booklet.

Loads of books, especially written by individuals, who like me, doesn't have English as their first language often end up in trouble using "Google translate" or something similar.

A case in point is Aeronaut Books, who in their ever increasing number of WW 1 aviation topics now also have invited both German and French writers.

No proof reading seems to take place at all, by anyone.

An extremely interesting book (for me) is David Méchain's Oriental Adventures of the French Air Force.

I can excuse the title, since France did not have any Air Force as such (their Army did), but we all usually refer to all aviation activities in WW 1 as done by an Air Force.

However on page 4 I find the following sentence (partly quoted) "which was which will find itself embedded on the roof of a house"
On the same page the author (or perhaps Google) calls Lohner for Löhner.

A couple of friends of mine have used me for check reading their manuscripts when their English primary options declined for various reasons.


Not ideal, but I think it has worked out quite well.

To find editors/proof readers who are as knowledgeable as the authors is not going to happen. There will still be errors in every book we read.

I agree with Andy, who is razor sharp when it comes to serial numbers, that it would be ideal to have someone checking those digits we both love, but it is an extremely tiring job and in the end not 100% foolproof either.

However I applaud all those writers not born in UK or USA doing their best without the support they deserve. Not everyone is like my friend Lennart Andersson both excellent researchers but also very linguistically talented.

Cheers
Stig

[Nick Beale]

Input from a second 'expert' can be valuable but I think the important thing is just 'a second pair of eyes', someone who can read it and ask 'what does that mean?' or 'why have you got that bit in twice?' or 'who is Lt. Schmidt?'.