I'm a copy editor.

我用過去38年的時間 試圖將自己隱藏起來。

I work at The New Yorker,

我是文字編輯人員。

and copyediting for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop

我在《紐約客》工作，

for a Major League Baseball team:

為《紐約客》做文字編輯就像是

every little movement gets picked over by the critics --

在一支職業大聯盟棒球隊 中做游擊手一樣：

God forbid you should commit an error.

每個小小的舉動 都會被評論家挑出來評論 －

Just to clarify: copy editors don't choose what goes into the magazine.

上帝禁止你犯錯。

We work at the level of the sentence,

需要解釋一下：文字編輯人員 無權選擇什麼內容會被收入雜誌。

maybe the paragraph,

我們專注於句子的修改，

the words, the punctuation.

也可能是段落，

Our business is in the details.

字詞，標點符號。

We put the diaeresis, the double dot, over the "i" in "naïve."

我們的工作注重於細節。

We impose house style.

我們把分音符，那兩個點， 放在單詞“naïve”中的“i”上。

Every publication has a house style.

我們進行版面風格設計。

The New Yorker's is particularly distinctive.

每份出版物都有一種 版面風格設計。

We sometimes get teased for our style.

《紐約客》的設計尤其特別。

Imagine -- we still spell "teen-ager" with a hyphen,

我們有時候因為 我們的風格而被取笑。

as if that word had just been coined.

想像一下 － 我們在拼寫"teen-ager" 的時候仍帶有連字符，

But you see that hyphen in "teen-age"

就好像那個單詞 剛被創造出來一樣。

and that diaeresis over "coöperate,"

但是當你看見"teen-ager" 中的連字符

and you know you're reading The New Yorker.

和"coöperate"中的分音符的時候，

Copyediting at The New Yorker is a mechanical process.

你知道你正在閱讀《紐約客》。

There is a related role called query proofreading,

《紐約客》的文字編輯 是死板的。

or page-OK'ing.

有一個相關的崗位叫作校準，

Whereas copyediting is mechanical,

或是版面完美化。

query proofreading is interpretive.

雖然文字編輯是機械的，

We make suggestions to the author through the editor

但是校準是需要靈活應變的。

to improve the emphasis of a sentence

我們通過主編向作者提出建議

or point out unintentional repetitions

以便提高句子的重點

and supply compelling alternatives.

或是指出非刻意的重複

Our purpose is to make the author look good.

並且提供有專業水準 的其它選擇。

Note that we give our proofs not directly to the author,

我們的目的是 讓這個作者看起來完美。

but to the editor.

請注意我們不是直接 把我們的校對本給作者，

This often creates a good cop/bad cop dynamic

而是給編輯。

in which the copy editor -- I'll use that as an umbrella term --

這經常帶來一種”好警察、 壞警察”的動態循環

is invariably the bad cop.

在這其中，文字編輯人員 我將用它最為一個總稱

If we do our job well, we're invisible,

永遠都是壞警察。

but as soon as we make a mistake,

如果我們的工作做得好， 我們不會被人察覺，

we copy editors become glaringly visible.

但是我們一旦犯錯，

Here is the most recent mistake that was laid at my door.

我們文字編輯人員 就會格外引人注目。

[Last Tuesday, Sarah Palin, the pre-Trump embodiment

這是我最近一次犯的錯。

of populist no-nothingism in the Republican Party,

「上個星期二，莎拉裴琳， 在川普之前就表現出

endorsed Trump.]

民粹‘不可知論’ 特質的共和黨成員，

"Where were The New Yorker's fabled copy editors?" a reader wrote.

表示支持川普。」

"Didn't the writer mean 'know-nothingism'?"

“《紐約客》著名的文字編輯人員 在哪裡？“一位讀者寫到。

Ouch.

難道作者不是想寫 ‘不可知論’ 嗎？

There's no excuse for this mistake.

哎呦。

But I like it: "no-nothingism."

沒辦法為這個錯誤找藉口了。

It might be American vernacular for "nihilism."

但是我喜歡這個單詞：“no-nothingism”。

(Laughter)

它可能在美國俚語中代表 “虛無主義”

Here, another reader quotes a passage from the magazine:

（笑聲）

[Ruby was seventy-six, but she retained her authoritative bearing;

這有另一位讀者從 雜誌上摘錄的語錄：

only her unsteady gait belied her age.]

「魯比76歲，但是她保持著 權威性的舉止；

He added:

只有她不穩的步伐 掩飾了她的年齡。」

"Surely, someone at The New Yorker knows the meaning of 'belied,'

他補充道：

and that it is the opposite of how it is used in this sentence.

“當然，在《紐約客》工作的人 知道‘belied’的意思是什麼，

Come on! Get it together."

也知道這個句子中用的 應該是和它相反的意思。

Belie: to give a false impression.

喂，請集中精力！”

It should have been "betrayed."

百利：證明...是錯的。

E.B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker:

正確的用詞應該是 “暴露”。

"They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body."

艾爾文·布魯克斯·懷特曾經 在《紐約客》中寫過關於逗號的評論：

(Laughter)

“它們用刀的精確度 勾勒出身體的輪廓。”

And it's true -- we get a lot of complaints about commas.

（笑聲）

"Are there really two commas in 'Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard'?"

這是真的 ， 我們有太多 關於逗號的抱怨。

There may not be on the sign, but yes, that is New Yorker style for "Jr."

“在馬丁,路德金Jr, 波樂瓦德' 這個名字中真的有兩個逗號嗎？”

One wag wrote:

在‘Jr.’後面可能沒有逗號， 但是《紐約客》中的"Jr."是有逗號的。

["Please, could you expel, or, at least, restrain,

有個喜歡開玩笑的人寫道：

the comma-maniac, on your editorial staff?"]

「拜託，可以請你開除， 或者，至少限制

(Laughter)

你們編輯人員中的 逗號狂熱份子嗎？」

Ah, well.

（笑聲）

In this case, those commas are well-placed,

嗯，好吧。

except that there should not be one

在這個例子中， 逗號用的很好，

between "maniac" and "on."

除了逗號不應該用在

(Laughter)

"瘋子"和"之上"之間。

Also, if we must have commas around "at least,"

（笑聲）

we might change it up by using dashes around that phrase:

還有，如果我們必須要在 "至少"前後用逗號，

"... -- or, at least, restrain --"

我們可以稍做修改，在那個短語 附近加上破折號：

Perfect.

"... -- 或，至少， 抑制 --"

(Applause)

完美。

Then there's this:

（掌聲）

"Love you, love your magazine,

然後還有這樣一條留言：

but can you please stop writing massive numbers as text?"

“喜歡你們，喜歡你們的雜誌，

[two and a half million ...]

但是可以請你們不再用文字 來表述龐大的數字嗎？

No.

「二百五十萬...」

(Laughter)

沒錯。

One last cri de coeur from a spelling stickler:

（笑聲）

["Those long stringy things are vocal cords, not chords."]

最後一份來自一位 拼寫執著者的抱怨：

The outraged reader added,

「“那些細長的東西是聲帶， 不是和弦」

"I'm sure I'm not the first to write

那個生氣的讀者補充道，

regarding this egregious proofreading error,

“我確信我不是第一個 寫信抱怨

but I'm equally sure I won't be the last.

這個嚴重的校對錯誤的人，

Fie!"

但是我同樣確信 我不會是最後一個。

(Laughter)

太糟糕了！“

I used to like getting mail.

（笑聲）

There is a pact between writers and editors.

我曾經喜歡收信件。

The editor never sells out the writer,

作家和編輯之間有協定。

never goes public about bad jokes that had to be cut

編輯永遠不會出賣作家，

or stories that went on too long.

永遠不會讓必須刪減的 不良笑話

A great editor saves a writer from her excesses.

或者是太長的故事 公佈於眾。

Copy editors, too, have a code;

優秀的編輯可以讓 作家免於贅述。

we don't advertise our oversights.

文字編輯人員也有規範；

I feel disloyal divulging them here,

我們不公布無心的錯誤。

so let's have look at what we do right.

我因為在這裡公佈它們 而感到不忠，

Somehow, I've gotten a reputation for sternness.

所以讓我們看看 我們應該做什麼。

But I work with writers who know how to have their way with me.

不知為什麼， 我因為嚴苛出名。

I've known Ian Frazier, or "Sandy," since the early 80s.

但是我與那些知道如何 和我相處的作家共事。

And he's one of my favorites,

我從80年代初就認識 伊恩·弗雷澤，或者是“桑迪”了。

even though he sometimes writes a sentence

他是我最喜歡的作家之一，

that gives a copy editor pause.

儘管他有時會寫

Here is one from a story about Staten Island

讓文字編輯人員 難以抉擇的句子。

after Hurricane Sandy:

這有一個關於史坦頓島的故事

[A dock that had been broken in the middle and lost its other half

發生在颶風桑迪之後：

sloped down toward the water,

「一個被攔腰折斷並 丟失了一半的船塢

its support pipes and wires leaning forward

滑落到了水中，

like when you open a box of linguine and it slides out.]

它的支撐管和電線 向前傾斜

(Laughter)

就像是你打開一盒義大利 扁麵條時，麵條滑出來一樣。」

This would never have got past the grammarian in the days of yore.

(笑聲)

But what could I do?

這個句子在多年以前是 不會被語法學家批准的。

Technically, the "like" should be an "as,"

但是我能做什麼呢？

but it sounds ridiculous,

嚴格來說，單詞"比如" 應該 換成"如同"，

as if the author were about to embark on an extended Homeric simile --

但是那聽起來很荒唐，

"as when you open a box of linguine."

就好像作者要使用一個 很長的荷馬式比喻 －

(Laughter)

“就像當你打開一盒 義大利扁麵條時。”

I decided that the hurricane conferred poetic justice on Sandy

(笑聲)

and let the sentence stand.

我斷定颶風給桑迪 帶來了應有的懲罰

(Laughter)

並決定讓那個句子 保持原樣。

Generally, if I think something is wrong,

(笑聲)

I query it three times.

通常來說，如果我覺得 有哪裡不對，

I told Sandy that not long ago in a moment of indiscretion and he said,

我會質疑三次。

"Only three?"

不久之前，在一次不審慎的談話中， 我把那個原則告訴了桑迪，然後他說，

So, he has learned to hold out.

“只是三次？”

Recently, he wrote a story for "Talk of the Town,"

就這樣，他學會了不妥協。

that's the section at the front of the magazine

最近，他為「街談巷議」 寫了一個故事，

with short pieces on subjects ranging from Ricky Jay's exhibit

那是在雜誌封面的一版

at the Metropolitan Museum

帶有關於一些話題的短文， 從雷基傑伊

to the introduction of doggie bags in France.

在大都會藝術博物館的展覽

Sandy's story was about the return to the Bronx

到法國推出食物袋。

of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

桑迪的故事是關於

There were three things in it that I had to challenge.

最高法院大法官索尼婭· 索托馬尼爾回到布魯克斯的。

First, a grammar query.

那個故事中有三樣東西 我不得不質疑。

The justice was wearing black and Sandy wrote,

首先，語法的質疑。

[Her face and hands stood out like in an old, mostly dark painting.]

那個法官穿著黑色的衣服， 然後桑迪寫道，

Now, unlike with the hurricane,

「她的臉和手凸顯出來，像 在一幅很舊，幾乎黑暗的畫中。」

with this "like," the author didn't have the excuse

這次，和颶風那次不一樣，

of describing hurricane damage.

使用這個“像”， 作者沒有

"Like" in this sense is a preposition, and a preposition takes an object,

描述颶風災害的藉口了。

which is a noun.

“像”在這裡是一個介詞， 介詞後面必須要有賓語，

This "like" had to be an "as."

也就是一個名詞。

"As in an old, mostly dark painting."

這裡的“比如”應該用“如同”。

Second, a spelling issue.

"如同一副老舊的黑暗的畫."

The author was quoting someone who was assisting the justice:

第二，拼寫問題。

["It will be just a minute.

作者引用了一位 法官助手的語錄：

We are getting the justice mic'ed,"]

「就一分鐘。

Mic'ed?

我們會讓公正發聲。」

The music industry spells it "mic"

Mic'ed?

because that's how it's spelled on the equipment.

音樂界把它拼作“mic”

I'd never seen it used as a verb with this spelling,

因為設備上就是這麼拼寫的。

and I was distraught to think that "mic'ed"

我從未見過這種拼寫 方式作為動詞使用，

would get into the magazine on my watch.

而且我一想到那個"mic'ed"

(Laughter)

會出現在我管理的 雜誌中就很心煩。

New Yorker style for "microphone" in its abbreviated form is "mike."

(笑聲)

Finally, there was a sticky grammar and usage issue

在《紐約客》中， "microphone" 的縮寫是"mike"。

in which the pronoun has to have the same grammatical number

最後，有一個棘手的 語法和使用問題，

as its antecedent.

就是那個代詞必須 與它代替的詞

[everyone in the vicinity held their breath]

在語法上保持數的一致。

"Their" is plural and "everyone," its antecedent, is singular.

「附近的每個人都 屏住他們的呼吸。」

You would never say, "Everyone were there."

“他們的”是複數，而它對應的 “每個人”是單數。

Everyone was there. Everyone is here.

你從不會說， “每個人都在那。”

But people say things like, "Everyone held their breath" all the time.

每個人都在那。 每個人都在這。

To give it legitimacy,

但是人們一直這樣表達， “每個人都屏住他們的呼吸”。

copy editors call it "the singular 'their,'"

為了讓這種表達合理，

as if calling it singular makes it no longer plural.

文字編輯人員把它叫作 單數的‘他們的’，

(Laughter)

就好像把它稱作單數 它就不是複數了。

It is my job when I see it in print to do my best to eliminate it.

(笑聲)

I couldn't make it, "Everyone held her breath,"

我的工作就是，當我看到這種情況 出現在印刷品中時，我要盡力消除它。

or "Everyone held his breath,"

我不能把句子改成， “每個人都屏住她的呼吸，”

or "Everyone held his or her breath."

或者是“每個人都屏住他的呼吸，”

Whatever I suggested had to blend in.

或者是“ 每個人都屏住 他的／她的呼吸。”

I asked, through the editor,

我提出的任何建議 必須具有融合性。

if the author would consider changing it

我通過主編詢問，

to "All in the vicinity held their breath,"

那個作者是否可以考慮 把句子改為

because "all" is plural.

“所有的人都屏住他們的呼吸，”

Nope.

因為“所有人”是複數。

I tried again: "All those present held their breath?"

不行。

I thought this sounded vaguely judicial.

我又試了一次： ”在那裡的所有人都屏住他們的呼吸？”

But the editor pointed out

我認為這個句子 聽起來稍微清楚些。

that we could not have "present" and "presence"

但是主編指出

in the same sentence.

我們不能讓"present"和 "presence"出現在

When the final proof came back,

同一個句子裡。

the author had accepted "as" for "like,"

當最終的審核結果出來時，

and "miked" for "mic'ed."

作者接受把"like"換成"as"，

But on "Everyone held their breath," he stood his ground.

"mic'ed"換成"miked"。

Two out of three isn't bad.

但是關於“每個人都屏住他們的呼吸，” 他保持自己的立場。

In the same issue,

三個問題改了兩個，還不錯。

in that piece on doggie bags in France,

在同一期中，

there was the gratuitous use of the f-word by a Frenchman.

在那篇關於法國食物袋的文章中，

I wonder, when the mail comes in,

一個法國人無端地使用了髒話。

which will have offended the readers more.

當我收到信件的時候， 我想知道

(Laughter)

哪種情況會讓讀者更惱怒。

Thank you.

(笑聲)

(Applause)

謝謝。