Final Consensus on SuperSystem2

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi driller:

That's not the case in SS2. I also agree that the original SS is very well written.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Boris:

You miss the point which is that I use an editor, and given that we are now in a major national market, it is very important that this is done.

MM

[yeltzen]

Mkay, well you can dance around this all you want but, as I'm sure you well know, the only thing your books have ever been criticized for is language-related. So, I find it ironic that this is what you choose to criticize another book for.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe SS2 wasn't edited. If it wasn't edited at all, it would be a lot worse; particularly since it was written by top poker players rather than poker players who were writers. It was not as heavily edited as your books.

Part of the charm of Brunson's section of SS1 is the self-published style, where the writing sounds the way Brunson talks. It definately does not appear heavily edited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cardoza Publishing's editors are known to be hacks. My roommate (who has an English master's degree) was offered a job as an editor and fact checker there but turned it down because she knew the quality of their work was horrible at best. 2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?) and content. SS2 was the first origional work by Cardoza that is good enough to reside on my bookshelf, that statement in itself must be considered within the context of this thread, since Cardoza products are traditionally crap.

I think you guys are all confusing an editor's role. Editors primarily fix prose to read in a fluid manner. Mistakes still sneak through, and often require a second, third, and fourth re-read to catch them. Many editors don't focus on punctuation or spelling as much as they used to thanks to the help that MS Word (or in Mason's case Word Perfect) provides in automating that task, so this is an area of common errors within a small publishing company such as 2+2.

So in short I do not belive Mason is the pot calling the kettle black, I stand by Mason's opinion and statements within this thread, I feel they were fair and balanced. For those who question my athority on this matter, I work for a magazine that was an ASME award winner - the American Society of Magazine Editors, which in itself is quite ironic in itself since my posts here are usually riddled with spelling errors.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Cardoza Publishing's editors are known to be hacks. My roommate (who has an English master's degree) was offered a job as an editor and fact checker there but turned it down because she knew the quality of their work was horrible at best. 2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?) and content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this verifies my statement that SS2 was edited. It just wasn't edited well or well edited.

[Leavenfish]

I have started on HOH and find it enlightening not being a no limit player.

This past week at a Borders/Waldenbooks trade show I picked up a complimentary copy of SS2. Now, I haven't read it yet...but I did take a look at the NL section. How different from HOH! Never once did I hear Doyle mention manipulating the pot size to force your opposition into making bad calls. How can someone not do that and expect to have that section get a positive reception??

---Leavenfish

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Luv:

Thanks. This post is very accurate.

Even though we spend a grest deal of time and effort, and don't deliver a book to the printer unless we think it's perfect, it seems that some type-os always get through. We do however get (most of) these corrected by the second printing.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi betgo:

I don't believe so. I find it difficult to believe that the limit hold 'em section or the triple draw lowball section were even looked at.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi betgo:

I don't believe so. I find it difficult to believe that the limit hold 'em section or the triple draw lowball section were even looked at.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

I would assume they were looked at, but not by a competent editor. From my understanding (which may be wrong, I do not claim to have inside knowledge of Cardoza's business practices with the exception of their advertising department) the book was rushed to press to meet a deadline due to reader demand now that the Poker Boom is upon us; the inclusion of the NL chapter from SS with almost no revisions is evidence of my belief.

TT:

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
2+2's work is far superior in readibility (is that a word?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Readibility is not a word but readability is. Well, you asked. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]