2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
None of us like the mistakes in the books, but I don't think it's likely to change.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

7n7 --

Yeah, I can't remember either and a search would be prohibitively annoying, at least while I'm multitabling.

The strange thing is that Mason routinely positions himself as this maverick publisher who flies in the face of convention to produce the best damn books he can, etc. Then he all but ignores a pretty critical aspect of producing a good book.

Now, it would make sense for him to decide that a gambling-sensitive audience isn't going to savor 25-cent words, and that he doesn't need to break the bank for some mega-pedigreed editor. But anyone who's ever preferred some writing to some other writing (or appreciated a clear explanation, etc.) should be aware that editing matters.

--Nate

[Nate.]

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

[uDevil]

WTHG is my favorite poker book since SSH. Which is not to say that it doesn't have shortcomings.

The style seems like an imitation of Sklansky and Malmuth's "mathematical language". Maybe the authors made a conscious effort to be precise in the same way as S&M or maybe they've just read so much of 2+2 books that they've internalized this style. Either way, I think it's a mistake to pursue precision at the cost of clarity. [IIRC, Bertrand Russell wrote an essay on this topic. I wonder how Sklansky would respond to his arguments?]

The organization of the book is haphazard. There are inconsistencies, many typos, and a whole section that gave me a headache trying to understand (fortunately, it wasn't due to just my lack of comprehension skill).

I'm not a writer or an editor, but I have done more than my share of reading. It's not fun to trip over errors while struggling through a maze of phrases. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about publishing to say that these problems are either inevitable or can be easily fixed by a good editor.

Still, more extensive proofreading couldn't hurt, so I hereby offer my services for this task on any future 2+2 books. As compensation, I ask only for a complementary copy of the manuscript. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Having criticized WTHG here, I'd just like to note that I have given it well deserved praise in other posts, and it is doubtless worth many times what I paid for it while the effort to read, understand, and apply the information it contains has been well spent.

[larrondo]

Harrington 3 drove me bananas, both because a lot of the answers were listed wrong (that is, answer C might be 'raise' in the questions, but 'fold' in the answers) and because it was occasionally quite hard to understand. As far as I know, no errata was created.

Of course, I love the book anyway. But my experience with good editors is that they catch that kind of thing pretty easily.

[ReptileHouse]

While my writing credentials are nowhere near some of the others' posting here, I do agree with the general point. The 2+2 books are excellent, but they could be far more effective in communicating the ideas. Correctible flaws in the editing hold back the overall product.

[Uncle Wimp]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ 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.

[7n7]

I own WTHG, but haven't read it yet. It sounds like my "huh?" meter is gonna' go off quite a bit.

I guess as long as I have this resource to post my questions, I'll get through it.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ 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

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Gonso:

I'm just going to use your post to make a couple of points. First off, there is a difference between editing and type-os. While we do a great deal of proofreading, getting all the type-os out has been a daunting task. But we do post errata and do make the appropriate fixes in the second printing.

As for the editing, to make sure that the text says exactly what it is suppose to say, we often go to precise mathematical language. The drawback here is that mathematical language can be cumbersome and sometimes flat out difficult to read. But it is rare for anyone who carefully reads what we publish not to know exactly what we meant for it to say. Our books aren't easy, but they do help most serious readers win money.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Pokerdemic]

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.