I don’t get it.
I doubt that anyone awarded (correct term) an honorary degree would ever say they “earned” it - almost certainly not Cronkite, for example.
I understand your point and it’s not that it’s wrong, exactly; most honorary degrees are given to someone who’s gone above and beyond in some respect. However, a degree given as an honor is not “earned” in the way a doctorate from that same school is earned. I think saying so is seen as a bit pretentious, and demeaning to those who did earn their degrees the hard way, and is thus avoided by those accomplished enough to be awarded one.
I believe that if you were to check with most upper-tier schools that have handed out the honorary sheepskin or two, they’d confirm that it’s more proper to say awarded than earned.
As an accomplished working academic, I think Brinkley just plain muffed this as he did in the other instances I cited.
I agree that “awarded” is the better term. It’s just that I’m used to hearing people colloquially say “earning” an honorary degree that it doesn’t really bug me. Maybe in a formal academic setting, but in a biography, I’d give it a pass.
I agree with the other nitpicks, although I have heard “golden rule” being used in a more expansive sense like “Rule Number One, from which all others follow” rather than the ethical “do unto others” Golden Rule. I can actually accept that usage and probably wouldn’t even notice it.
In one of the ERB “John Carter” novels, there’s a line “In the name of the ninth day. . . .” It’s possible that that should have been “ninth ray” instead, since on Barsoom, they recognized nine colors in their spectrum. Possibly the “ninth day” was the Martian Sabbath, but I don’t recall any such references.
These are terrible, and very similar to my complaint, only worse for having come from an academic.
That’s hilarious, but it doesn’t sound like an error 
I have also sent an email to the publisher. Not because I want new comic books, but because this is really annoying. It sort of makes me lose faith in the world.
I believe what you mean to say is that you unagree about “disinterested.”
d&r
I worked in publishing for 17 years, so I can assert with some confidence that it’s possible copy-editors made the “corrections.” I’ve seen hundreds of instances where correct usage was changed to indisputably incorrect usage, even granting wide latitude for differing interpretations.
Once the book is set into type, and the changes become expensive to implement, the standard reply when errors are pointed out is “Oh, no one will notice.” As this thread proves, many do.
One edition of John Betjeman’s Continental Dew collection had to be pulped after his publisher spelt the author’s name as “Bateman” by mistake. His own publisher!
On the “OK barrier reef” example, I’d bet that’s a member of the production staff having a little joke when he was bored one day, but fully intending fix it on the proofs before any harm was done. In my first job as a journalist, the editor made it clear that we were never EVER to do this, as there’s always a risk that stuff will slip through.
As it did locally in 1984, when some jokesters forgot to correct something, and a classified ad was not printed as intended “Work your to the top!” Instead it was printed as “Fu¢k your way to the top!”
The person placing the ad was not amused.
Arguably not an error, but something that bothers me about Lee Child’s Reacher series is that every time he writes about a tire, he spells it, “tyre.” I get that Child is English, but the books takes place in America with an American protagonist, and nothing else in the series is given the Queen’s English treatment. No bonnet, no lift, no lorry, etc, only “tyre.” I’m cruising along and when my eyes slam into, “tyre”, it takes me out of America for a moment.
Anne McCaffrey’s “Get Off The Unicorn” was the result of an editor mistyping the actual title, “Get Of The Unicorn.”
I really dislike it when people misuse the possessive apostrophe with character names that end in an S. My absolute favourite book series ever, which is Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Tad Williams, is full of that error with the character Elias. It’s always written as Elias’ when in my opinion it ought to be Elias’s.
This particular misuse is increasing, and I fear it will soon be standard. I hope I’m dead before that happens.
Um, it is standard according to some style guides. And it’s hardly a new thing–it’s old-fashioned. The trend is, in fact, going the other way, keeping the apostrophe-s.
Cite.
I dislike that too, but I think it’s accepted.
I also hate the misuse of “defiantly/definitely”, but I’ve mostly seen it online, not in published works.
What annoys me (and has been mentioned here before) is Jean M. Auel’s constant use of comma splices in her later works. This hasn’t been corrected.
Last time I checked, which was a few years ago and not very thoroughly, it was not standard, just common. Which, as I said, usually means it will become standard soon.
I think it’s not just wrong, but ugly.
I can reluctantly accept the annoying absence of the Oxford Comma, but not the ugly misuse of possessive apostrophes.
I believe Strunk & White’s final declaration was to always use apostrophe-s, except for the handful of classical names ending in s for which a different rule applied (Jesus’ being the most obvious). I’ve followed that right into editorial board fistfights.
I think you’re thinking of a time past; an increasing number of titles go from the author’s copy of Word to the plates with none of these mythical “koppy eddytrs” or any other phantasms involved. I joke, but only slightly - I know for a fact that quite a few midlist novels go straight to press with barely a dusting-off, and I’ve found too many “better” books where an egregious misspelling or usage is found all through, nothing a paid editor could possibly be induced to leave.
I am, in the end, just dismayed that such a major scholarly work by a significant author and from a major publisher could have such errors overlooked - and suspect that it, too, went author-to-binding.
On a number of occasions I’ve found typos in The New York Times.
Not especially surprising, considering how much content they turn out and the speed at which some of it is written. Still, it’s the New York Times and it always kind of surprises me.
One of S M Stirling’s books was rather badly copy-edited. The one that stands out clearly to me is the “triathlons” at Stonehenge.
What? They never held triathlons at Stonehenge? Is there no place to do the swim leg nearby? 