2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[Nate.]

The general attitude toward 2+2's editing is roughly similar to that toward Shaq's free throw shooting. An incomparably good product makes us shrug our shoulders at a glaring flaw.

If I recall correctly, Mason has claimed to be committed to better editing (and general appearance) of 2+2 books. Whatever he's doing isn't working; I just picked up Winning in Tough Hold'em Games and it's dense with casualisms, solecisms, and shoddy puncutation.

Now, WTHG looks very good. I'll read it, and I'd bet it will make me money. This, however, is not the same that the language issues don't matter. If a book is hard to read, fewer people will read it, and the ones who do will either learn less or have to spend more time to get the same information.

The irony is that grammar is to book-writing roughly what math is to poker. Mason Malmuth makes books that point out that poker players who believe that math isn't too important only succeed because their competition is bad and/or because they are doing other things that allow them to succeed (usually while misjudging the relative importance of math vs. the other things). Yet he constantly and, judging by certain prefaces and comments, arrogantly commits an analogous mistake in the publishing business. He out-sells his pathetic competition with products that are excellent in some, but only some, respects.

I am a grammar nerd, but my intent here is not to turn up my nose while flaunting my deep knowledge of phrasal adjectives and the differences between the em- and en-dashes. My intent is to wonder, publicly, why Mason seems not to realize that making a book hard to read costs him readers; that good English is the substance, not the dressing, of a book; and that good editors aren't too expensive.*

I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts about whether this assessment is fair, how they think the poker-book scene might change as gambling gets more popular, and what the funniest mistakes in 2+2 books are.

--Nate

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

[Humble Pie]

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
it's dense with casualisms, solecisms, and shoddy puncutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess none of us are exactly perfect are we?

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's dense with casualisms, solecisms, and shoddy puncutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess none of us are exactly perfect are we?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured I'd get a response like this. My 2+2 posts, though, are generally more grammatical than 2+2's books.

--Nate

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's dense with casualisms, solecisms, and shoddy puncutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess none of us is exactly perfect...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, none takes a singular verb.

--Nate

[7n7]

You figured correctly then. I used to be a copy-reader at an evening newspaper, so it's a disease that things like this don't escape me.

At any rate, there's usually published errata after the books come out and in some cases, second prints. As long as the mistakes don't interfere with the meaning, then I can live with it. I don't like it from a personal preference but I won't boycott the books or anything.

Now, what does worry me is when some of the percentages are wrong, or when a hand appears higher in a chart than it should be by mistake. Even then, it's usually not a catastrophic error.

Lastly, gotsa' to use spell-check on posts like this dude, esp. if you were trying to get a call-back (however minor the intention). It's like a misspelling on the resume.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's dense with casualisms, solecisms, and shoddy puncutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess none of us is exactly perfect...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, none takes a singular verb.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not posting for an editor's position though.

sos i can puncutate howevfr i WanT.

[Gonso]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

[7n7]

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.

[jfk]

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.