The review of Cecile Fabre's Whose Body is it Anyway? is a step nearer print - today I received corrected proofs. There were rather a lot of corrections, some of which were standard (one split infinitive), others Americanisms (do they really say 'florishing'?) and others I consider somewhat fussy. Nonetheless, some were rather more frustrating:
A sentence along the lines 'we accept a transfer from a dead person's estate to the needy, so we need some reason to deny them rights to the dead person's organs' was changed to 'we accept a transfer from a dead person's estate to needy people, so we need some reason to deny the needy rights to the dead person's organs'. Maybe my knowledge of English grammar is deficient - like many native speakers, it's more something I 'picked up' than was taught formally - but I fail to see why I couldn't say 'the needy' in the former case and yet the construction was inserted in the latter.
Moreover, even if it isn't ultra-correct standard English, talk of 'the talented', 'the needy', etc is common in the discourse. Several corrections seem to stem from unawareness of such: for instance, Rawls' now standard term 'conceptions of the good' was changed to 'conceptions of goodness'.
Even worse, however, were a few examples where I think philosophical points were missed or twisted:
An extensively re-worked sentence about the threshold of distributive justice had an insertion that stated - needlessly and incorrectly - threshold of well being, though Fabre - like many others - is a resourcist.
Secondly, the phrase 'body-rich' got changed to'people who have an excess [of organs]' - but I don't think it's claimed anyone has excess kidneys, only that those with more than needed (i.e. two) might donate them to those with none.
Body richness:
ReplyDeleteIguanas have two penises (the male ones, at least)
I think you could read the 'excess' in 'excess (kidneys)' as referring to having more than you need, but the rest is just weird.
ReplyDeleteHow annoying. Were you able to respond to the "corrections", or were they set in stone?
ReplyDeleteI did email the editor about a few, and got some wriggle room.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, when I got the final proofs (http://bensaunders.blogspot.com/2007/06/proofs.html) 'conception of the good' seemed to have been reinstated (that, or there was another use of the phrase that had been missed)