2+2 and Editing: Oh, the Irony

[fraac]

Agree with everyone critical of 2+2 writing standard. Even with Ed Miller or Alan Schoonmaker, who can at least write readable sentences, the larger structure is poor.

2+2 will suffer in a more competitive market because of THIS issue. Mason's pride will suffer to admit this. Which will break first? I saw that thread where he defended an incorrect mathematical position for much longer than reasonable, right until he heard people say 'standards of 2+2 are evidently poor, won't buy books'.

I find it interesting, anyway. The forum will surely persist, and that matters more.

[CasinoR7]

Nate is right that there is a lot of room for improvement in the editing of 2+2 books, in my opinion the binding of the books is also crappy. But because 2+2 doesn't have any serious competition, they are not going to change things anyway. And nobody will ever think about not buying 2+2 books, because that would seriously put them in a disadvantage compared to other players. See the glass as half full as oposed to half empty and appreciate the knowledge 2+2 has to offer.

[ohgeetee]

This has been brought up often, and the same obtuse responses always follow.

The books have horrible style. Call it proofreading, call it editing, call it writing, whatever hairs you want to split. There are sentences and paragraphs that you have to read 4 times to wade through. THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF ITS TECHNICAL NATURE. It is because of poor style and writing.

Read the thread, the only replies so far have been:

Your post has errors, therefore you should expect a book you bought to have them, LAWL!!!1!!11! -random poster(s)

We DO edit, you just don't have the full story. We even got a psychologist to edit for us, this is how serious we are!- MM

Its a technical piece of work, it SHOULD have a bunch of crappy writing.


Just put up a sticky or something...

"we don't want to pay more money to edit books that have poor punctuation, run on sentences that should probably be paragraphs if they were written in other industries and paragraphs that could very well be chapters on their own because of the technical nature of the dialog created by the writings of advanced poker materials by authors that are first and foremost: poker players, and not necessarily editors but may be psychologists because it would increase the cost of publishing the book as well as miss out on getting 3 months of people to buy a book because those people already quit and the rate of players in and out of poker isn't something that is linear, it goes in 3 month spurts where you either hit it or you don't, and even though a 3 month delay puts a books release right after the airing of the WSOP that wouldn't particularly mean there would be an influx of new players looking for books or anything because we do a fine job editing our books. Best Wishes, 2p2"

[Vandelay1959]

[ QUOTE ]

Just add this to the sticky or something...

"we don't want to pay more money to edit books that have poor punctuation, run on sentences that should probably be paragraphs if they were written in other industries and paragraphs that could very well be chapters on their own because of the technical nature of the dialog created by the writings of advanced poker materials by authors that are first and foremost: poker players, and not necessarily editors but may be psychologists because it would increase the cost of publishing the book as well as miss out on getting 3 months of people to buy a book because those people already quit and the rate of players in and out of poker isn't something that is linear, it goes in 3 month spurts where you either hit it or you don't, and even though a 3 month delay puts a books release right after the airing of the WSOP that wouldn't particularly mean there would be an influx of new players looking for books or anything because we do a fine job editing our books. Best Wishes, 2p2"

[/ QUOTE ]

right fraac?

[JJH3984]

Nate,

I haven't read through all the posts in this thread, but let me just say amen. As graduate student in creative writing, I find some of the errors in 2+2 books untenable. While they are great books, HEFAP, TOP, and Stox's new book all have editing/style flaws. The technical nature of the texts requires more clarity, not less. Let’s face it, some of the concepts in these books are complex, and their editing further detracts from their lucidity.