Lazar,
I could argue that if what has been the standard form of English for approximately 200 years has suddenly been found to be 'alienating' in the past 30 or so, that people are *choosing* to be alienated. It's like getting upset that the air is a bit 'nippy' or writing that someone has a 'chink' in their armor and getting all offended.
Or perhaps that it has always been alienating and the people alienated have typically been marginalized and not listened to.
Firstly, "he" is not first and foremost masculine. "He" is, by default, neuter.
I am really curious as to where you got this idea. I've been combing through grammar discussions and style guides and the like for awhile now, can't find any such assertion from a scholarly source.
As far as I can find, "he" is generally defined as a gendered pronoun, associated with males.
"He" used to be used as a gender-neutral pronoun in writing, but that doesn't, by default, make it a neuter pronoun first. If you have quotable evidence to the contrary from a reliable source, please share it with us.
When I WAS looking up the usages of gendered pronouns in a neutral setting, using the style manuals I had to hand, this is what I found, for the record:
Using he, his, and him as common-sex pronouns is now widely considered sexist, if not misleading [...].
Some personal pronouns have special uses. (1)He, him, and his have traditionally been used as pronouns of indeterminate gender equally applicable to a male or female person . Because these pronouns are also masculine-specific, they have long been regarded as sexist when used generically, and their indeterminate-gender use is declining.
Interestingly, while I think most readers would assume the "considered sexist" refers to the exclusion of the female gender, your argument could be a strong consideration for an opposite interpretation---using "he" as a neutral pronoun marginalizes anyone who identifies with the male gender. It's actually an excellent argument for why using "he" as a "neutral" pronoun is a poor idea.
Some other quotes of interest, for any and all reading this thread to consider:
Gender bias. Consider the issue of gender-neutral language. On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun (he in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by reading he/she or s/he, for example) or to use they as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers. What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender neutrality. What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender neutrality. There are many ways to achieve such language, but it takes thought and often some hard work.
Because good scholarship requires objectivity, careful writers of research papers avoid language that implies unsubstantiated or irrelevant generalizations about such personal qualities as age, economic class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs, race, or sex. Discussions about this subject have generally focused on wording that could be labeled as sexist. For example, many writers no longer use he, him, or his to express a meaning that includes women or girls: "If a young artist is not confident, he can quickly become discouraged." The use of she, her, and hers to refer to a person who may be of either sex can also be distracting and momentarily confusing. Both usages can often be avoided through a revision that recasts the sentence into the plural or that eliminates the pronoun: "If young artists are not confident, they can quickly become discouraged," or "A young artist who is not confident can quickly become discouraged." Another technique is to make the discussion refer to a person who is identified, so that there is a reason to use a specific singular pronoun. They, them, their, and theirs cannot logically be applied to a single person, and he or she and her or him are cumbersome alternatives to be used sparingly.
The bold emphasis is mine to point out the course that most game publishers tend to take (associate character-based text with specific iconics and therefore use the gender of said iconic). Yes, I know this last reference is for research papers, not game writing, but I generally find the Modern Language Association to be a good source for rulings on contemporary grammar usage in writing.
What I think is interesting here is that two ideas are made clear:
1) According to standardized editorial practices "He" is increasingly unacceptable for a stand-in neutral pronoun.
2) No other standard has yet been set--hence the heated debates--although a number of alternatives are laid out very clearly.
In my personal opinion and usage, I often prefer pluralizing ("they"--as long as one remembers to conjugate the associated verbs correctly), and when that cannot be done reasonably, alternating pronouns. In "how-to" kind of texts (which can include game manuals), "you" can also be acceptable.
Indeed, coming from an editorial background, what drives me crazy about Paizo's printing style is NOT the alternating between "he" and "she"--that's fine, especially since they do have the iconics to reference, and it makes sense in that context. It's that their manuals as a whole alternate between third-person and second-person. For example, the character classes use third person ("A barbarian's land speed is faster than the norm for her race by +10 feet"), while the feats section use second-person ("You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks.").
I can understand why they do that--I've been doing some Pathfinderizing fiddling with d20 Modern, where the writers originally stuck obsessively to third person, gender neutral whereever possible, but some descriptive text got very bloated and confusing because of that. "You" eliminates that (the Pathfinder feat text is much clearer). At the same time, describing all class abilities with "you" could also get vague. But from a perspective of editorial consistency, the perspective variation bugs me a bit.
Or perhaps that it has always been alienating and the people alienated have typically been marginalized and not listened to.Lazar,
I could argue that if what has been the standard form of English for approximately 200 years has suddenly been found to be 'alienating' in the past 30 or so, that people are *choosing* to be alienated. It's like getting upset that the air is a bit 'nippy' or writing that someone has a 'chink' in their armor and getting all offended.
And perhaps that before they had time to work on making language more inclusive, they were working on things like trying to earn the right to be educated, or work, or vote. :)
Hell, a woman in the 1890s had trouble earning the right to ride a bicycle without someone criticizing her for it (I am not making this up. In addition to its being too athletic for "appropriate" female activity, certain individuals were concerned the bike seat might cause... inappropriate pleasure to the female rider. Again. Not making this up). So while I'm sure getting rid of "he-as-standard-pronoun" might have been on the New Woman's agenda, she had some other issues to address first (and yes, I know that was 100 years ago, not 200. Just an example. Plus 200 years ago, I'm pretty sure the majority of women, save those in the upper classes, couldn't even read).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you're ignorant enough not to see that it's a problem. And it is a problem, because I want girls at my gaming table, not just sweaty overweight 30+ nerds!
I find your comment here sexist. Are you suggesting that women can not be "sweaty overweight 30+ nerds"? Are women not smart enough to be "nerds"? Are they required to control their weight to be accepted by you so that they are never "overweight" (it is thinking like this that leads to eating disorders)? Can they not "age" like men can and never reach older than 29? And women shouldn't perspire, because it isn't "lady"-like? Get your mind out of the stone-age my friend.
|
Also, you're ignorant enough not to see that it's a problem. And it is a problem, because I want girls at my gaming table, not just sweaty overweight 30+ nerds!I find your comment here sexist. Are you suggesting that women can not be "sweaty overweight 30+ nerds"? Are women not smart enough to be "nerds"? Are they required to control their weight to be accepted by you so that they are never "overweight"? Can they not "age" like men can and never reach older than 29? And women shouldn't perspire, because it isn't "lady"-like? Get your mind out of the stone-age my friend.
Oh, my Pres Man bait worked. Yay!
He has always been the default in English. It's what I use.
"It has always been done that way" is the worst possible justification for something. Doing something because it makes sense, because there is no better way, and so on, fine. But blind adherence to tradition? Makes me want to throw up and then drown lots of people in the vomit.
Same with "back in my day".
cringe when I read 'your welcome'. :-)
What's wrong with my welcome?
Now, there's a trend to reach out of the male ghetto. (Cref: that whole atrociously crap, if well meaning, Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress from WotC).
Ugh. And I'd managed to forget that.
Well the exact nature of the iconic Ninja is still up in the air, so there's that.
The he/she nonsense drives me beserk UNLESS you are referring to a hermaphrodite. Then I am ok with it.
Formerly female cyborg from Outworld.
|
|
He has always been the default in English. It's what I use."It has always been done that way" is the worst possible justification for something. Doing something because it makes sense, because there is no better way, and so on, fine. But blind adherence to tradition? Makes me want to throw up and then drown lots of people in the vomit.
Same with "back in my day".
What's wrong with my welcome?
cringe when I read 'your welcome'. :-)
Granted, Kaeyoss might be slightly biased, because blind adherence to tradition in Germany *might* lead to him running over my garden over in a tank, but he does have a point.
|
|
Now, there's a trend to reach out of the male ghetto. (Cref: that whole atrociously crap, if well meaning, Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress from WotC).Ugh. And I'd managed to forget that.
It was a good idea, killed by crap execution. Oh wait, that's how most things WotC does nowadays turn out...
I propose a celebrity deathmatch: DGRM44 vs. Seoni Cheesecake crowd.
I'll get the popcorn.
If only the charisma based spellcaster stopped prostituting her charms to our eyes, she could fight chauvinism and scorch the guy with the weird name that sounds like something I'll order for my printer to ash.
If you're not being overly dramatic for effect, then perhaps some non-fiction reading on gender identity issues and culture might be recommended to put things in proper perspective.
The he/she nonsense drives me beserk UNLESS you are referring to a hermaphrodite. Then I am ok with it.
99% of people are either a he OR a she. Pick one. If you want to use a different example in the next sentence with someone of the opposite gender from the previous, fine.
Gender identity? Christ on a crutch. How does that have any impact on picking 1 gender to refer to the same person in the same sentence? Just f%&@ing pick one. If you prefer to see a person's gender by how they see themselves instead of their physical form, then go ahead. BUT STICK TO IT. Don't be a wuss about it.
You do realise that you're barking up the wrong tree, right? Your ridiculous outbursts refer to a simple error. They admitted it was an error in this very thread.
Boy must your face be red.
It was a good idea, killed by crap execution. Oh wait, that's how most things WotC does nowadays turn out...Now, there's a trend to reach out of the male ghetto. (Cref: that whole atrociously crap, if well meaning, Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress from WotC).Ugh. And I'd managed to forget that.
I never recommended it, and never would, to any of my non-gamer female friends (or male for that matter). On the other hand, my (totally non-gamer) gf really liked most of Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks; she said she understood me a lot better after reading it :)
I made my points and I feel good about it. We pick and choose our morality as we each see fit. I don't see anything on here that proves the old way is bad compared to the new way of writing style. The new way is more confusing/distracting and it is a pandering choice to a small group*. That is the facts even if you don't want to admit it. We are not saving the world one she/her at a time...but to each his own.
Have a nice day. Back to the game and all the fun that comes with that!
*I don't mean women as the small group.
|
|
I made my points and I feel good about it. We pick and choose our morality as we each see fit. I don't see anything on here that proves the old way is bad compared to the new way of writing style. The new way is more confusing/distracting and it is a pandering choice to a small group. That is the facts even if you don't want to admit it. We are not saving the world one she/her at a time...but to each his own.
Have a nice day. Back to the game and all the fun that comes with that!
It's not pandering to a small group. It's trying to have that group expand, for all the good reasons, among other to save our hobby from shrinking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made my points and I feel good about it. We pick and choose our morality as we each see fit. I don't see anything on here that proves the old way is bad compared to the new way of writing style. The new way is more confusing/distracting and it is a pandering choice to a small group. That is the facts even if you don't want to admit it. We are not saving the world one she/her at a time...but to each his own.
Have a nice day. Back to the game and all the fun that comes with that!
I don't see how relating the gender pronoun to the iconic is confusing/distracting or even necessarily pandering. Now having about equal representation of male and female iconics may be pandering, if you take it that way. But once the choice is made, relating the appropriate pronoun to that iconic is entirely logical.
Granted, Kaeyoss might be slightly biased, because blind adherence to tradition in Germany *might* lead to him running over my garden over in a tank, but he does have a point.
Given that this would not ruin my day but yours (your garden, my tank), I'd say that it's you who is biased here. ;-P
But never fear, I'm not the running-over-gardens-in-tanks kind of guy.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Granted, Kaeyoss might be slightly biased, because blind adherence to tradition in Germany *might* lead to him running over my garden over in a tank, but he does have a point.
He has always been the default in English. It's what I use."It has always been done that way" is the worst possible justification for something. Doing something because it makes sense, because there is no better way, and so on, fine. But blind adherence to tradition? Makes me want to throw up and then drown lots of people in the vomit.
Same with "back in my day".
What's wrong with my welcome?
cringe when I read 'your welcome'. :-)
Oh I agree. I take pride in being a throwback :P
(psst, that point is on his head). What I do find interesting is listed above in the Chicago guide to style.
"Using he, his, and him as common-sex pronouns is now widely considered sexist"
Then, three pages later
"Because these pronouns are also masculine-specific, they have long been regarded as sexist when used generically, and their indeterminate-gender use is declining."
(emphasis mine)
So in three pages it's gone from 'now' (implying a recent innovation) to 'long been regarded'.
By who? When did this start?
I'm not critizing the poster, but it makes me wonder how it was 'discovered' that the English language has sexism hardwired in it.
It is the strength of English that evolves over time, but if the use of masculine-as-neuter pronouns is so daunting and sexist, it makes me wonder how the women of my generation ever learned to read ;-)
To everyone who gets their knickers in a bunch over this, I recommend reading up all material that exists in Pathfinder concerning Gozreh!
|
|
I'm not critizing the poster, but it makes me wonder how it was 'discovered' that the English language has sexism hardwired in it.
It is the strength of English that it evolves over time, but if the use of masculine-as-neuter pronouns is so daunting and sexist, it makes me wonder how the women of my generation ever learned to read ;-)
Maybe language and society cannot be disassociated?
Perhaps we should compose a list of English-language using nations that are not sexist, and have not been for the majority of their history?
So in three pages it's gone from 'now' (implying a recent innovation) to 'long been regarded'.
Three pages can be forever. Ever read Gormenghast?
I'm not critizing the poster, but it makes me wonder how it was 'discovered' that the English language has sexism hardwired in it.It is the strength of English that evolves over time, but if the use of masculine-as-neuter pronouns is so daunting and sexist, it makes me wonder how the women of my generation ever learned to read ;-)
Well, it could have been a man who discovered that it was sexist.
And how did the women of your generation learn to read? I guess some were fast enough with their making of sandwiches that they were allowed to spend some time learning it? Or their husbands send them to school so they would think proper thoughts while making sandwiches?
I hear that this equal rights thing is a gradual process. One right at a time.
I don't see how relating the gender pronoun to the iconic is confusing/distracting or even necessarily pandering. Now having about equal representation of male and female iconics may be pandering, if you take it that way. But once the choice is made, relating the appropriate pronoun to that iconic is entirely logical.I made my points and I feel good about it. We pick and choose our morality as we each see fit. I don't see anything on here that proves the old way is bad compared to the new way of writing style. The new way is more confusing/distracting and it is a pandering choice to a small group. That is the facts even if you don't want to admit it. We are not saving the world one she/her at a time...but to each his own.
Have a nice day. Back to the game and all the fun that comes with that!
By reading "she" in a sentance, I am expecting a specific target. She is rarely used to refer to an unspecified person. This causes a pause as I then have to think of who that target is.
When reading "he" I am not expecting a specific target because it is frequently used to refer to an unspecified person. I read seamlessly over it and don't notice it.Therefore, "she" sticks out in a document like the rule book, but "he" is ignored.
I am not saying this is a good thing, not sexist, or anything like that. I am just saying this is how I, and many others, read it. This is the confusion that Death Quaker's style guides refer to.
To everyone who gets their knickers in a bunch over this, I recommend reading up all material that exists in Pathfinder concerning Gozreh!Gozreh? That's softcore. Now, Erastil...
You misunderstand. It's not about the message, or the deities' outlooks. It's about the usage of "he" and "she".
Staying above the debate about the 'offensiveness' of gender equity for the moment:
We specifically chose to have half men and half women iconics to keep the gender split as even as possible. Technically, with the addition of the ninja, the samurai, and the gunslinger, we're at an odd numbered mix of iconics now, and that means we have one more female iconic than male. If and when we do another one, chances are 100% that he'll be a guy.
Technically speaking, there are 22 iconics, with 11 female (Alahzra, Amiri, Feiya, Imrijka, Kyra, Lini, Merisiel, Seelah, Seoni, plus the gunslinger and ninja iconics from Ultimate Combat), and 11 male (Alain, Balazar, Damiel, Ezren, Harsk, Nakayama Hayato, Lem, Sajan, Seltyiel, Valeros, and the unnamed antipaladin from APG).
That is, if we're counting iconic characters from alternate classes as iconics. Which we are.
So: hooray, equality!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, it could have been a man who discovered that it was sexist.
I'm not critizing the poster, but it makes me wonder how it was 'discovered' that the English language has sexism hardwired in it.It is the strength of English that evolves over time, but if the use of masculine-as-neuter pronouns is so daunting and sexist, it makes me wonder how the women of my generation ever learned to read ;-)
My point is when did this revelation occur? Not the sex of the 'discoverer'. I find myself wondering if someone 'discovered' the language was 'sexist' and started telling people, or if it was a general consensus or what?
And how did the women of your generation learn to read? I guess some were fast enough with their making of sandwiches that they were allowed to spend some time learning it? Or their husbands send them to school so they would think proper thoughts while making sandwiches?I hear that this equal rights thing is a gradual process. One right at a time.
You *do* realize I was being sarcastic with the last thing, like how did my generation survive childhood with toys that shot hard plastic projectiles, lead miniatures, and lawn darts. *shudder* Lawn darts.
(psst, that point is on his head). What I do find interesting is listed above in the Chicago guide to style.
"Using he, his, and him as common-sex pronouns is now widely considered sexist"
Then, three pages later
"Because these pronouns are also masculine-specific, they have long been regarded as sexist when used generically, and their indeterminate-gender use is declining."
(emphasis mine)So in three pages it's gone from 'now' (implying a recent innovation) to 'long been regarded'.
By who? When did this start?
I'm not critizing the poster, but it makes me wonder how it was 'discovered' that the English language has sexism hardwired in it.
You can refer to me by name (instead of "the poster"). I hope I'm not so abhorrent that I'm "she-who-must-not-be-named." ;)
Also, splitting hairs much? :) I think their point is clear regardless, and the nature of a style manual is to note what is accepted usage now, not debate the history of language. They should be chided for the vague language by their own guidelines, fair enough. But if you're truly curious however, I suggest you write to the University of Chicago Press and ask them for their sources. Here's a place to start http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html
The fact remains that according to most contemporary publishing guidelines (and others beyond the MLA and the University of Chicago Press; that's just what I had to hand), "he" is an outdated use for "neutral" pronoun. You may personally disagree with it, you may not even be able to find the specific moment when it began to change, but that doesn't change the fact that current editorial policy by many publishers is to move beyond an older linguistic tradition. Therefore, with all due respect, arguing "but that's the way it's always been," holds very little water in arguing what publishers can or should use today. (ETA: It also occurs to me from YOUR choice of words--"English [...] evolves over time"--that is probably precisely why most people can't pinpoint the exact moment it began to change. Evolution by its nature tends to be a gradual process. )
It is the strength of English that evolves over time, but if the use of masculine-as-neuter pronouns is so daunting and sexist, it makes me wonder how the women of my generation ever learned to read ;-)
By the strength and insistence of the women and men before them who fought for women's right to have equal access to education. And indeed, I'm sure it was many women--and men--of your generation who most loudly noted what they saw as an unfair use of language, thanks to that very education.
So, the ninja iconic is a girl. Thanks for confirmation, Brian.
Well, the picture speaks for itself really.
By reading "she" in a sentance, I am expecting a specific target. She is rarely used to refer to an unspecified person. This causes a pause as I then have to think of who that target is.
When reading "he" I am not expecting a specific target because it is frequently used to refer to an unspecified person. I read seamlessly over it and don't notice it.
Therefore, "she" sticks out in a document like the rule book, but "he" is ignored.
Exactly what I wanted to say earlier. +1
"He" can be read as gender-neutral, whereas "She" cannot.
When I read things like "A barbarian can end her rage (...)" I have to overlay my reading mental process with "Not all barbarians are female" or "This is to refer to the iconic character of this class". It's annoying.
"It has always been done that way" is the worst possible justification for something. Doing something because it makes sense, because there is no better way, and so on, fine. But blind adherence to tradition? Makes me want to throw up (...)
You're right because some traditions become obsolete, morally wrong, or politically incorrect over time. But a language is not a mere tradition that one can throw over one's shoulder because it suits them <- notice the gender neutrality of this sentence?
Additionally, this is all about English. Other languages have different ways of expressing gender neutrality, sometimes better, sometimes worse. Would we want to force English on those for whom it's worse? Would we accept to change our whole language for another in which it's better? No. Traditions can be changed relatively quickly, but a language will need much more time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You can refer to me by name (instead of "the poster"). I hope I'm not so abhorrent that I'm "she-who-must-not-be-named." ;)
Sorry DQ, multitasking and didn't take the time to add that detail.
Also, splitting hairs much? :) I think their point is clear regardless, and the nature of a style manual is to note what is accepted usage now, not debate the history of language. They should be chided for the vague language by their own guidelines, fair enough. But if you're truly curious however, I suggest you write to the University of Chicago Press and ask them for their sources. Here's a place to start http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html
I'll do that when I get home. I just raise my eyebrow when the way of doing things is changed. I mean I can joke about how Paizo's style 'offends me' (It doesn't, I was kidding) but I don't have the influence or authority to declare it offensive. I'd hate to think this started because some editor or university president decided "This is sexist!" and made it their personal crusade.
Like I said originally, I'll continue to do things my way unless I'm writing on someone else's dime.
By the strength and insistence of the women and men before them who fought for women's right to have equal access to education. And indeed, I'm sure it was many women--and men--of your generation who most loudly noted what they saw as an unfair use of language, thanks to that very education.
Wow, I really failed that 'craft sarcasm' check. See my reply to Kae.
|
You're right because some traditions become obsolete, morally wrong, or politically incorrect over time. But a language is not a mere tradition that one can throw over one's shoulder because it suits them <- notice the gender neutrality of this sentence?
It is gender-neutral, but number-wrong. According to traditional grammar rules, "them" is right out, because you've switched from the singular "one" to the plural "them."
As a sidebar, for linguists who are more interested in descriptive ratherthan proscriptive grammar, the push to use "they" or "them" as neutral pronouns is indicative of a language that is, if you don't mind some anthropomorphism, "feeling" the lack of a neutral pronoun and trying to fill that gap. That strongly indicates that, for some portion of the English-speaking populace, "he" isn't getting the job done.
"It has always been done that way" is the worst possible justification for something.
Not sure if it is the *worst*, but it's certainly a close runner. +1 to you, KaeYoss.
What's wrong with my welcome?
Oh, well done, sir! Bravo!
It's settled, folks - "he" is gender-neutral because that's the way it's always been. As are "man", "male", "guy", "dude", and "definitely not a woman".
Also, the internet doesn't exist, so we aren't having this conversation.
Yep. So glad there were so many here willing to mansplain it for me.
There's any picture?
Yes, it's from the Ninja Bureau of Public Relations. The picture is taped to your last will and testament. The real one, not the fake.
Also, the internet doesn't exist, so we aren't having this conversation.
Dang it! I knew I was talking to myself! And there are a lot of voices in my head, each with their own opinions.
Can't I all just get along?
When I read things like "A barbarian can end her rage (...)" I have to overlay my reading mental process with "Not all barbarians are female" or "This is to refer to the iconic character of this class". It's annoying.
How is this any different from what I've had to do for the last twenty years (albeit with switching genders in the reference)?
|
|
When I read things like "A barbarian can end her rage (...)" I have to overlay my reading mental process with "Not all barbarians are female" or "This is to refer to the iconic character of this class". It's annoying.How is this any different from what I've had to do for the last twenty years (albeit with switching genders in the reference)?
Now that was well played.
Strunk's Elements of Style states one should at minimum stick to one gender or another.
No matter what we choose, we'll offend someone.That's simply not true. When referencing class abilities, it is easy to use gender neutral terms that refer to the reader such as "you" or "your."
I. Completely. Agree.
We do it for feats, and spells, and skills, and other things... but not classes, for some reason. It's a style choice Paizo inherited from Wizards of the Coast. I'd like to convert fully to you-style, if only because it's consistent and means I can give my freelancers a simple instruction and precedent to follow... but now we're in a weird place of "if we change it, our current books don't match our older books." Which I understand, but I think clarity is better than sticking to a weird earlier precedent.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I. Completely. Agree.
We do it for feats, and spells, and skills, and other things... but not classes, for some reason. It's a style choice Paizo inherited from Wizards of the Coast. I'd like to convert fully to you-style, if only because it's consistent and means I can give my freelancers a simple instruction and precedent to follow... but now we're in a weird place of "if we change it, our current books don't match our older books." Which I understand, but I think clarity is better than sticking to a weird earlier precedent.
Time for Pathfinder 2e then *ducks*
Creative Director
|
James/Sean,
Touching on this subject, does Paizo ever make use of volunteer proofreaders at all for their products? If so, how would I go about applying to do so?
I'll also add: not looking for free product or compensation or anything silly like that. Just getting to see things early would be enough of a treat for me, and I may or may not have had extensive experience with NDAs before. I unfortunately would not be at liberty to discuss that topic further.
Apologies if Sean already answered this (I'm not reading ahead before I post this), but "volunteer proofreaders" would not be a good solution at all.
We have no way to quality control "volunteer proofreaders" first of all. Not everyone is as good at proofreading as they think they are, first of all, and secondly, volunteers, by not being on-site or actual employees, would not have access to or familiarity with our internal style guide—which is a quite large document filled with all the rules.
Our products are on a swift schedule, and since we can't assume that a volunteer would be able to turn around tens of thousands of words in a single day, that throws a kink into the swiftly-moving schedule. Furthermore, when we're putting a volunteer's edits and corrections into a document, the editor has to evaluate every one of the changes, since the volunteer doubtless made errors (even if those were unintentional errors due to lack of familiarity with our style guide). And finally, no matter HOW many times a book is proofread... errors will get through. When you're producing products on a tight monthly schedule, you have to come to terms with the fact that you can't catch every error in every book before it goes to print—you do the best you can in the time you have, and in this case, that means not complicating the schedule by involving out-of-house volunteers.
And none of this touches on the fact that we DO try to keep our books relatively secret until they release, for lots of important reasons.
All in all... it's just not a workable idea, alas.