Prolific Typos and Lucky's Scrotum
Horn Book editor Roger Sutton recently posted the following query on his blog regarding typos in new books: "should a review mention their presence in a book even when they are few or solitary?" I've often wondered this myself. It's rare, but once in a while I'll review a hardcover edition of a new book with multiple errors cropping up willy-nilly all over the place. Do I mention this in my review then? Is it even the author's fault?
An Australian author by the name of Lili Wilkinson had a rather nice point which I shall now quote here:
A two paragraph review of my first book spent one paragraph detailing a typo, what it was, what page it was on.So that was one debate. But read through the comments and suddenly there's a virtual flame war regarding Susan Patron's use of the word "scrotum" in The Higher Power of Lucky. Just out of curiosity, why does Roger's blog get all the attacks between commentators? I love you guys, but we should totally try to match him in peculiar rivalries over tiny topics. We could fake it, of course. MotherReader could say that the word "scrotum" is funny and J.L. Bell could counter that the word "ball-sack" is funnier (which it is) and it could descend into a mud-splattering free-for-all involving the invoking of various Norse gods and minor celebrities. How 'bout it? Y'all in?
the other paragraph questioned that the word 'rape' was mentioned in the book, but not included in the glossary.
i would have preferred a negative review to a persnickety one.
Sidenote: You know how Washington Mutual is trying to earn some street cred by calling itself WaMu? Can I start calling Horn Book HoBo? Please? Pretty please?