2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to keep beating on you Nate, but the irony is in this post itself.

You had 3 typos in just a few paragraphs, paragraphs that you had all the time in the world to proof-read. Writing a book and trying to deliver it by deadline is a slightly different animal.

I'm in no way defending the obvious mistakes in the 2+2 books, but they happen. I don't know if the cost of a pricey editor would increase the cost of the book, but as stated above, I'm o.k. with them right now.

Plus, unlike other books, there's a forum to note the mistakes so that people can correct them...if readers take the time to come here that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

7n7 --

Come on. That's a little silly. I'm multitabling. If I held my posts to the same standards I hold my paid work, I'd get very little posted.

Anyhow, my intent in posting was not primarily to look for work. (That would violate the T&C, right?) It was to point something out, poke a little fun, and hopefully draw comments from anyone with an observation or some relevant experience or whatever.

I'm OK with 2+2 not being the New York Times. But in the first three pages of WTHG I had to stop and reread several times because the English is so bad. This deserves comment and maybe even some mockery.

--Nate

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we stop nitpicking on Nate's post. He makes a solid, valid point. The 2+2 books, especially the first editions, are populated with easily fixed errors.

Additional editing resources would improve the product and make the books more readable.

Mason seems to get prickly when this subject is broached but many readers here agree fully with Nate.

[/ QUOTE ]

jfk --

Thanks.

The bigger point is really not how many readers agree with me but how many "agree" with me without knowing they do. That is, it's not that some people enjoy seeing good grammar; it's that grammar in books is like math in poker in that it matters even if you think it doesn't.

--Nate

[Municipal Hare]

Nate.,

How would you rate Small Stakes Hold 'em? In large part I remember being impressed by its polished, tight prose. Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games feels like a rushed manuscript by comparison.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate.,

How would you rate Small Stakes Hold 'em? In large part I remember being impressed by its polished, tight prose. Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games feels like a rushed manuscript by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hare --

I haven't read it in a while, and I think I only read it once, but if I recall correctly it was far better than most 2+2 books and, despite some tripping points, readable.

--Nate

[Gonso]

Meanwhile, a lot of other people aren't bothered by the writing at all (whether you think they are or not). There are quite a few typos and simple grammatical errors in your own posts, and your clarity leaves a lot to be desired. I'd rather leave it as is than decipher relatively obscure words, and drag through wordy sentences with several semi-colons in them.

Mason has a winning system, and dominates the poker book market. I'm sure he's considered the costs and benefits associated with additional proofreading and editing. I doubt that the writing quality is hurting sales that much... it's not as if there are comparable substitute goods out there for a lot of these books anyway.

If you can't stand the writing in WTGH, what else will you buy instead? This is a specialty market.

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, a lot of other people aren't bothered by the writing at all (whether you think they are or not). There are quite a few typos and simple grammatical errors in your own posts, and your clarity leaves a lot to be desired. I'd rather leave it as is than decipher relatively obscure words, and drag through wordy sentences with several semi-colons in them.

Mason has a winning system, and dominates the poker book market. I'm sure he's considered the costs and benefits associated with additional proofreading and editing. I doubt that the writing quality is hurting sales that much... it's not as if there are comparable substitute goods out there for a lot of these books anyway.

If you can't stand the writing in WTGH, what else will you buy instead? This is a specialty market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gonso --

I use too many semicolons, so you'd rather not read my writing. That's me using bad English, and it matters.

I'm probably going to read WTHG no matter what, but I know people who don't read 2+2 books because they don't like how they're written. I know even more people who have started a 2+2 book and just lost interest in it--the writing has a lot to do with that.

Mason's got a winning formula that could be better. I think the cost/benefit evaluations he's done are biased by his stubbornness and his untrained ear for the language. Why do so many successful technical-writing publishers choose to hire competent editors?

--Nate

[7n7]

None of us like the mistakes in the books, but I don't think we're likely to see a perfect book in the near future. Demand states to get them out ASAP and guess what suffers?

This discussion/debate isn't new...kinda' like the book-binding one.

Didn't Mason address all this some time ago? I'm too lazy to search though.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
7n7 --

Come on. That's a little silly. I'm multitabling. If I held my posts to the same standards I hold my paid work, I'd get very little posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche poosycat!

[PokrLikeItsProse]

You remind me of Gary Carson who, in The Complete Book of Hold Em Poker, recommended TOP--in his words "probably the most important book ever written about poker")--but suggested that people search out the expanded Prentice-Hall edition because "it was coauthored with a professional writer and is much better written than the current version."

EDIT: Does anyone know how much editorial staff 2+2 has? I wouldn't be surprised if MM does it all himself.

[jeffnc]

Nate is basically right. HPFAP is basically a mess, and it's not just "mistakes" that simple editing can correct. If you don't know how to write a good book, you just don't know. SSH is way better, and I'm optimistic for Pro NL too.

WTHG is on my short list for important poker books, but I don't enjoy reading it very much at all. Hard to say why though. Maybe the subject matter itself is just too dry. Or maybe not, who knows.