2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts about whether this assessment is fair

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not fair and here's why:

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'm an editor. Yes, I'm making this post in part because I figure there's a small chance Mason will it and decide to give me some work

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
he stopped answering my e-emails. I'm better and probably cheaper than whoever he's employing now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that no one here will question my judgement in not answering you before. But I'm going to give a very specific answer here.

Unfortunately, not everyone who writes a poker book has the writing skills of a Bill Robertie or Alan Schoonmaker. If this was the case, my job would be a lot easier.

When we receive a manuscript, we have to go through it and and try to make the writing as clear and accurate as possible. Sometimes however, we will return the book to the author. Othertimes, we'll go ahead and work on the writing to improve it.

So far this year we have worked with four different manuscripts and have major delays on two of them. That's because with these two books we felt that they needed complete rewriting of a fundamental nature. We didn't think that the editing process would be enough. So they were returned to the authors for total revision.

On Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games we made the decision to go the editing route. Part of the difficulty with this text is simply that the material is very complex, and it is difficult to completely smooth out material that is inherently difficult. I'm sure if you were to contact either Nick Grudzien or Geoff Herzog, they would tell you that the editing process was far more thorough and comprehensive than they expected, and that far more changes/corrections/edits were made in their text than they thought were even possible.

On the two other books that were returned to the authors for complete rewrites, on one, Alan Schoonmaker has joined the writing team (and I expect to see the final text in a few days). The other has been resubmitted and is now an acceptably written manuscript and will be published in July.

I won't mention the titles of these books here, but I think most everyone knows which of our upcoming books have been delayed, and delays in our publishing field translate to lost sales that we do not fully recover due to the way that some players who would purchase the text drop out of the market. Also, I want to stress that the writing problems we had with both of these texts had nothing to do with the quality of the information they contain.

But next time you take a cheap shot at us, keep in mind that there's a good chance you do not know the complete story. And for everyone else, we at Two Plus Two are committed to producing the highest quality books in all aspects.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason --

Thanks for taking the time to respond. You mentioned that nobody would have blamed you for not doing so, and I'm no exception.

(Also, parenthetically, I'd like to point out that I've worked indirectly with Mason on some stuff for the 2+2 magazine and he's been nothing but courteous, professional, considerate, etc., etc.)

The substance of your reply, however, strikes me as curious. He seems only to emphasize that:

(A) There is some editing process, and
(B) He isn't satisfied with second-rate books, and
(C) The nature of his business makes presents unusual editing challenges.

But none of that changes the fact that 2+2 books, including WTHG, are full of completely preventable errors that mar the book and impair the reader. There were many such errors in just the first few pages. Editors in other fields deal with these same difficulties math textbooks far more successfully, and given that I'm sure there exist fast-working and accurate editors who know both poker material and grammar, I'm not sure what Mason's post amounts to.

Therefore I'm led to conclude that Mason just doesn't care very much about grammar or style. He doesn't seem to consider it an aspect of good bookmaking. Which puts him in the position of a poker player who doesn't care about the math.

--Nate

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
I spend most of my time reading academic books written by English professors. Given the absolute turgid and crappy writing styles many of them employ, 2+2 are the most lucid books I've read in years.

There are obvious problems, but I've never had a problem with clarity (the most important issue here given the rhetorical situation). I can't understand how writing a harsh post is going to get you (Nate) editing work. You may be a good editor, but you have some work to do as a rhetorician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokerdemic --

Obviously my intent in making this post was not primarily to look for work. To do so in this manner would have been borderline insane. I included that stuff because I think it would have been disingenuous not to and (secondarily) because it let me make a couple dry jokes.

--Nate

[Nate.]

Pokerdemic --

Also, agreed about academic writing by English professors. Many of them, ironically enough, use deeply ineffective English in their academic writing. I think we both know why.

--Nate

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
The readers are forewarned in HPFAP in a Note on the English. I guess we can take it or leave it when it comes to writing style.
This has more to do with style than with grammar. I can put up with typos, misplaced commas, etc., if the meaning is clear, but it's a chore to have to read the same paragraph repeatedly to understand a point.
No one wants to re-read anything. We'd all like to read something once and have that light bulb go on in our heads. Harrington's books have mistakes, but the message and concepts are clear to me. On the other hand, I had to read the summary in Chapter 21 of Theory of Poker (regarding betting on the end) over and over and over. Finally, one day I got it. I look back on the experience of reading Theory of Poker and say: there must be a better way of explaining it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's real easy for Mason to give some flip answer like "hey we're math and poker geniuses, so excuse us if we miss a comma here or there." It's not about that stuff at all. When you publish a book, then you're an author and a teacher. And these guys just aren't very good writers or teachers.

Analogy. Who would you rather take a lesson on the golf short game from: Ray Floyd, or Dave Pelz?

[dasein]

[ QUOTE ]
All --

An illustrative sentence:

[ QUOTE ]
While live play generates 30 to 40 hands per hour at a full table if things go smoothly -- sometimes as little as 25 hands per hour when they do not, Internet play yields 55 to 60 hands per hour, even more at short-handed tables -- and because the poker rooms make more money from short-handed tables and many players enjoy the additional speed and nuances of a shorthanded game, they are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, yikes.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Then perhaps to illustrate your point even better, you could post for us how you would edit this snippet.

[Guy McSucker]

I see you like to use the Oxford comma.

Guy.

[ChuckyB]

Unless the mis-placement of a comma changes the meaning of a sentence, who really gives a crap?

With poker books as long as there aren't two 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and all the concepts are correct, I'm not bothered at all by slightly incorrect or imperfect grammar.

I too am a nit-picker. But with these books...I don't care much.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All --

An illustrative sentence:

[ QUOTE ]
While live play generates 30 to 40 hands per hour at a full table if things go smoothly -- sometimes as little as 25 hands per hour when they do not, Internet play yields 55 to 60 hands per hour, even more at short-handed tables -- and because the poker rooms make more money from short-handed tables and many players enjoy the additional speed and nuances of a shorthanded game, they are becoming the rule rather than the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, yikes.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Then perhaps to illustrate your point even better, you could post for us how you would edit this snippet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as I've said, the point isn't my editing. But an easy and obvious revision is:

***WARNING: I'M MULTITABLING RIGHT NOW***

"At a live table you see 25 to 40 hands per hour, but on the Internet you get 60 hands per table per hour, and even more if the game is shorthanded. Shorthanded tables are beginning to dominate online play; players enjoy the speed and challenge, and sites collect rake faster."

--Nate

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the mis-placement of a comma changes the meaning of a sentence, who really gives a crap?

With poker books as long as there aren't two 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and all the concepts are correct, I'm not bothered at all by slightly incorrect or imperfect grammar.

I too am a nit-picker. But with these books...I don't care much.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were just about nit-picking, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Matt Matros' book is an example of a poker-related book where the mechanics are occasionally lacking but the result is easily readable. I'm historically a big fan of 2+2 books (I've bought lots of them and frequently recommended them) but I've only read parts of WTHG because it's unpleasant and cumbersome. I'll finish it eventually--the material's just too good--but the book's flawed.

A great example is the Harrington on Hold'em series. Poker-wise this is nowhere near 2+2's best work. Much of the advice is obvious to experienced players, and some of it is just plain wrong. (Jason Strasser has a post somewhere summarizing and emphasizing many of the criticisms.) But the book, while not Faulkner, is readable. I think Mason vastly misjudges how much of these books' overwhelming (and enduring) popularity is due to the mechanics and how much is due to the material.

--Nate

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

***WARNING: I'M MULTITABLING RIGHT NOW***


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no excuse for someone criticizing grammar and usage to commit errors in grammar and usage.


[ QUOTE ]
"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't put enough time and effort into your posts to avoid doing what you are complaining about, you have zero credibility.