The proof is not in the pudding

One of the most hated activities in all of writing is proofreading. It takes a special kind of focus to sit down with a manuscript and go through, word for word, looking for the slightest slip. And even though books from respectable publishers will usually have undergone this process with at least three separate pairs of eyes, I have hardly ever read a published book where I didn't spot an error or two - which means that there were probably several more, as once I get into a book, I tend to read so quickly that I don't spot much at all.

This being the case, there was a huge temptation when I got a spam email from a proof reading service. What are the chances, I thought, that their email would have a mistake in it? Wouldn't that be deliciously ironic? I have reproduced it here for your delectation. I could only spot one punctuation error, but who know what might be lurking within. (And I do wonder about the journal publication service.) Meanwhile, back at the pudding*...

PROFESSIONAL PROOFREADING AND EDITING

X Proofreading company is one of the world’s leading editing and
proofreading companies. Our company’s primary objective is to provide
clients with prompt, professional, and affordable editing and
proofreading services. Our careful proofreading and editing services
provide clear, error-free materials that let you present a
professional image.

At X Proofreading company, we offer the following services:

1. Proofreading and editing
2. Translation from other languages to English
3. Manuscript write-up
4. Manuscript critiques
5. Publication of manuscript in a relevant journal

Send your documents for proofreading and editing to;

email address 1,

email address 2

* I should note that, as it often misrepresented as 'the proof is in the pudding', the phrase is 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating,' just as the proof of the writing is in the reading. I deduce that if the activity involving writing is proofreading, the activity involving pudding should be proofeating.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog