No freshly ground black people

[TooNice]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...guin-cook-book
Going head-to-head for worst typo with the LHC typo earlier this year. Moral of the story? Don't use a spell checker

[format]

Quite unfortunate but hopefully there won't be a big fuss about this.

[jim]

I did like that story... IIRC they said something along the lines of "Mistakes can slip through, and we appreciate that a proofreader would be fairly bored by the time they reach the 200th recipe"

[Flash477]

You mean that wasn't a genuine ingrediant! ... erm, anyone know a good lawyer

[Georgy291]

I did like that story... IIRC they said something along the lines of "Mistakes can slip through, and we appreciate that a proofreader would be fairly bored by the time they reach the 200th recipe"

or hungry

[Million]

Oh my, that's excellent

[Saracen]

I think that qualifies as an "Ooooops".

I will also say that if anyone picks this up on some kind of racist agenda, it'll be utterly daft. I have no doubt this is simply a case of sloppy proof-reading, and I suspect that some freelance proof-reader somewhere is going to get a notable reduction in their commissions from this publisher. To zero. And/or, depending on what their contract says, a bill for the costs involved.

But I've got a lot of sympathy for the proof-reader. It can be hard picking up this kind of typo. Certainly, to some extent, the brain interprets the info it gets, not just "reads" it, or rather, reading is at least partially interpretative, and we see what we expect to see. The faster you read, the more true this is. And while you might expect to see " black pepper" in a list of ingredients, you don't expect to see "black people" .... so it's quite possible you just wouldn't see it, especially if proofing recipe after recipe after recipe.

That's not to excuse professional sloppiness, but I do understand it.

When I first started writing professionally, I'd check my completed work with a spoil-chucker, then I'd re-read it carefully, and correct more misteaks. Then I'd print it out, cheque it and find Moor. Then I'd leave it a couple of days, then check again a correct the last mistake or too, and finally, show my pristine, utterly perfect copy to my dyslexic wife, who would promptly point out the silly errors I'd missed.

And the often would be "silly" errors. Once pointed out, they stood out like, if you'll excuse the analogy, a prime sirloin steak at a Hindu feast. They were so obviously incongruous I can't believe I missed them, not once but several times. Yet, miss them I did. I believe it's because I know what I meant when I wrote that bit, and that lurks in the subconscious, and adds to the "context" in which the brain interprets what it reads. I know what I meant to type, so it's what the eye and brain "see". The wife, of course, doesn't know what I meant, so it stands out like that prime sirloin.

This is a daft typo and slightly sloppy proof-reading. But that's all it is.

[peterb]

Ironic that "The Grauniad" should pick up a typo!