Sorry! I did not intend any insult. I love indexing, and as Mark said in my defense, it’s what I want to do for a living. Also, I ordered the book so that I could not only read what a good friend has recommended, but to practice my indexing.

And what I had meant to mention and then decided didn’t belong in the review was that you (and others) who take the route you did, Walt, to publish this might want to consider either students or folks trying to get started in indexing. Many would do it gratis to get a foot in the door, or perhaps as a practicum or independent study.

Jenn, I’ll do my best and keep my fingers crossed that it’s a short time, also.

Back to conferencing…

Fortunately, there seems to be evidence that my own belief–that this book is an easy read–is correct, which makes the mediocre (the kindest word I can use) index less fatal.

If someone wants to write a snarky review pointing out all the flaws in the book–particularly now that there have been three very kind reviews from three very different sources–I would not only say “be my guest,” I’d say I’d read the review with interest. And, of course, ponder the criticisms if/when there’s a second edition.

It is possible that I am overvaluing MIT Press’s actual stature, but nonetheless…. Also notice, I did not say horribly edited, but poorly.

As for examples, I apologize but I am away at a conference and have none at hand. If time allows, I will try to post a couple examples after I return.

Now, in all fairness, I will also state that there are many other presses that do not do any better. To me, it seems the quality of editing has gone down over the last few years. I also apologize as I realize there are various forms and stages of editing. Mostly, I believe I’m referring to final editing.

I am curious to learn, sir, which MIT Press books you’re referring to (it appears that you’re referring to all of them), and whether you can provide any further details about what made the editing so poor.