Can you use that as a "rabbinic approbation" in the front when you do your next edition? 
beautiful review for an ugly book.
the good Rabbi read it on Friday night. My question is...how many L'chaims did he imbibe between the fish and the soup.
Really Rabbi Fink...you ought not to enable him like this.
you haven't even read the book. Until you have, please no comments.
Badad:
The book is really great.
You can read it, then disagree if you like. But I think you will find more things you agree with than things you disagree with.
Haven't I read enough fo your Parsha insights here on your blog to grasp your general mehalech?
Only those who own the book may comment. Pony up 20 bucks or forever hold you piece.
my lips are sealed.
>or forever hold you piece.
typo...or something more? 
Badad yosheiv,
You can sit all alone in the corner in a time out.
The rabbi's review was excellent and I agreed with what he said as well as how he said it. Particularly liked the Lexus example.
DB,
Are you going to grace us with more Parsha posts? I used to look forward to them every week.
GLASS HOUSES ALERT
Before I begin he [SIC: the]substantive review, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I found the dedication and acknowledgements sweet and honest. It was not contrived as some cheesy dedications are and it only added to the power of the book...
I read it - it's a collection of very interesting posts. I could have used some proofreading though, DB. You left in misspellings and grammatical mistakes. Good shabbat reading though.
I proofread the hell out of it. Believe me. Unlike the books you buy at Barnes and Noble, though, this one didn't have a professional proofreader working on it. It was only me. I did the best I could, and acknowledge I could have done better.
I contest the claim that anything was wrong with the grammar though.
thanks stone thrower.
I can fix it, though my blog is free, you get what you pay for... 
)
aww, very sweet review.
DB, did I mention that we're sending one of our copies to a friend who just got smicha? Hopefully he'll find it as thought-provoking as Rabbi Fink.
I contest the claim that anything was wrong with the grammar though.
I'll look through it again this Shabbat and will enlist the assistance of my former-English-professor wife. I could have been wrong about the grammar. I'll let you know what I find.
I agree the book is great.
I don't agree you're blushing
SM!
Welcome back!
I was wondering where you'd been off to.
Has anyone bought the book today?
No
You need a good marketing plan.
OK, you "proofread the hell out of it". But do you have any plans on doing some more editing? I'll pony up, but typos bug the hell out of me.
Frumheretic,
I believe I did some proofreading of this manuscript too and obviously must have missed the typos. Believe me, if you can enjoy the blog with all the charming spelling mistakes that DB makes around here every day, you won't be too disturbed by the typos in the book.
Oh come on,
Don't 'not buy it' because of a few typos!
You didn't know about the typos til I mentioned them (kicking myself) so if you think it is worth the read you will not be too jarred by the few typos...
Yah, I have a copy also. Which reminds me that I really must buy a few of rabbi Pinky's latest..... some members of the chavurah would appreciate it.
Great review by rabbi Fink. Can't find anything to disagree with.
Of course, as a friend of the court, I can't say that I was really looking for what to disagree with either.
My only issues with typos is that the book doesn't come with a comment thread on which I could gleefully point them out to DB.
But seriously, it's an excellent book and I'm very glad I bought it.
OK, you "proofread the hell out of it". But do you have any plans on doing some more editing? I'll pony up, but typos bug the hell out of me.
Yes. I will edit it some more, and perhaps add some posts, too.
Hey, that's right. TO did review the manuscript. So its her fault that some typos weren't fixed before we published. Heh. Knew it.
Also, I'm kidding. She found even more mistakes than I did. Pobodys Nerfect.
Oh, the typos killed me (especially "angles" instead of "angels"), but I'm the type that reads the entire newspaper almost everyday and at the end says "what a crappy editor they must have". In reality, almost everyone relies mainly on electronic editing which only works to a very limited extent (which is why it didn't catch "angles" in DovBears book). But who really cares, as long as the essential meaning can be understood? All in all, I really enjoyed the book, it's my style of Torah. My first comment to Dov on motzai chag was "when is the next volume coming out?"
I read the entire book over Shavuot, so that means that I wasn't able to mark it up, so if someone wants me to find all the typos/usage/grammatical errors, I'll have to read it again on a yom chol.
Well, it is possible that your first mistake was expecting me to be any good at proofreading. I am no editor. Don't really have much patience for details. So the fault belongs entirey to you - for choosing the wrong friend to ask to proofread. But hey, even if I did a crappy job, at least I get mentioned in the acknowledgements.
Still happy with the concept for the cover though. I forget, didn't you want to put some bear on it orignally?
Next time looks like you are going to have to try R' Fink, JS or Mark. Sounds like they would do a much better job. But keep me around for artistic ideas for the cover. Better with art than with writing.
I find that the only people truly capable of carefully proofreading are people whose livelihoods depend on it. Even most people who read extensively, like academics, don’t understand proofreading and really arent too good at it. When I have a document I need perfectly proofread I will usually ask a friend who is a corporate lawyer. Those guys have jedi-like proofreading skills.
I'll gleefully "edit" future posts. I'll be needing a large black permanent marker and a sharp pair of scissors.
Bray, I'm thisclose to banning you again. We had a nice atmpsphere during your "vacation" Don't wreck it.
I find that the only people truly capable of carefully proofreading are people whose livelihoods depend on it
Nah, I know some really first rate proofreaders who do it professionally, but even they miss things now and again. Books (I mean real books, not self-published ones like mine) are so polished because they are read dozens of times by teams of professionals.
By the way, the difficulty I had (even with TO's help) in producing a perfect text ought to suggest certain things about the condition of handcopied scrolls...
By the way, the difficulty I had (even with TO's help) in producing a perfect text ought to suggest certain things about the condition of handcopied scrolls...
So I take it you and TO won't be going into the sofer business?
she'll shekht the animals, I'll tan the hides and DB will do the calligarphy.
So I take it you and TO won't be going into the sofer business?
JS | 07.08.09 - 10:42 am | #
Well, you know, if all the mentally ill one day get cured leaving me out of work. . .
When I have a document I need perfectly proofread I will usually ask a friend who is a corporate lawyer. Those guys have jedi-like proofreading skills.
Double Harvard | 07.08.09 - 8:59 am | #
Totally agree. Except in my case, the nearest corporate lawyer is a gal, not a guy.
If you want professional quality proof-reading, you should be prepared to pay for it. If you have someone close to you who does this kind of work, you can ask them to do it for you as a "favor," but you'd have to recognize that proper line-editing, especially if your copy isn't that clean, takes hours and hours of work.
Anyone who has spent some real time doing editing work knows what it feels like to have someone hand a manuscript to you and say, "Oh, can you give me some feedback?" or "You don't mind proofreading this, right?"
Add to that the fact that it is virually impossible to self-edit. Your brain becomes "locked" and glosses over your own mistakes. Even someone who edits gets someone ELSE to proofread his or her own work.
One last thing: Unlike Mark, I don't find reading things with typos (or bad grammar) to be a fun game. I find it dissonant and simply stop reading.
Offwinger: Your loss.
Pedant -
I disagree.
I'm sure there is a tipping point: how many mistakes would you tolerate in exchange for a work that is otherwise "high quality" in content?
In this case, I'm nearly certain that I've judged correctly for myself.
Also, please note that I am someone who was not originally interested in buying this book. I've had previous experience with self-published work, both fiction and non-fiction, and I know that the overall writing quality is usually not good enough to make up for otherwise quality content (ideas, stories, etc.).
The only thing that would have made me reconsider is if someone I respected had recommended it, reporting that the book quality was high - both in terms of overall writing AND content.
Ok, so you're a snob. Cool.
You're gonna miss out on lots of good stuff though...
If the writing is good, and the ideas are good, some typos don't matter. I'd tolerate 20 typos per page or more if they book was good. Only, I'm not a snob see and I'm not easily distracted by things that are irrelevant to the main point.
Do you have ADD? That might be why typos bother you so much. I suggest medication.
Pedant:
Did you buy the book?
Huh, who is using "Pedant" today? The tone sounds awfully familiar. . .
FYI, ADD is an outdated diagnosis. We call it ADHD now. But good hypothesis. People with ADHD could find the typos so distracting as to stop reading it.
Offwinger,
You obviously read this blog from time to time though. If you are able to read DB's posts and not stop due to typos, you would have no problem with the book. There are far fewer typos in the book (as the book contains cleaned up editted versions of many of the essays that have been posted here).
But if you don't buy the book, your loss. Personally, I would recommend it even if it were just for the acknowledgements section. But that's just me. And the dedication is beautiful as well.
Offwinger - One last thing: Unlike Mark, I don't find reading things with typos (or bad grammar) to be a fun game. I find it dissonant and simply stop reading.
Nonsense. Otherwise you would stop participating on blogs (where typos are rampant). Even the headlines on many blogs, including this one*, have typos (or various other errors)! And yet, you continue to participate. And I don't find it to be a "fun game", but rather it's something I am good at, maybe I should have been born an editor instead of an engineer?
Dov, if you so desire, I'll do a complete editing job on your next edition or next book. By complete, I mean correcting spelling, grammar, and usage to the best of my ability, with the addition of editorial comments as well.
* Most recently on DovBear, "Falliable Rashi" instead of "Fallible Rashi". It's probably not even fixed yet
Awesome Mark. Thanks
Its not fixed BECAUSE NO ONE TOLD ME
(also I don't care)
Someone bought the book today.
A congregant of mine who reads my blog. Ayin Sham for interesting comment...
Congrats.
The book is now out of stock at Amazon. It was in stock earlier when I posted a link to it on #twitter.
Dov, how often do they (lulu) report to you about sales?
it's a collecters item!
Books (I mean real books, not self-published ones like mine) are so polished because they are read dozens of times by teams of professionals.
No kidding. On our team, for the really important stuff, it goes by at least 3 editors, especially if the marketing people decide they want to "tweak the language" one more time... (sighs)
So, I guess I'll offer to proofread, but only the English parts - my Hebrew sucks.
People with ADHD could find the typos so distracting as to stop reading it.
So can editors.
If you are able to read DB's posts and not stop due to typos, you would have no problem with the book.
OK, my final piece here: I am MUCH more lenient about reading typos online than in printed matter.
If it's important enough to kill a tree for, and put in a medium which you cannot later revise for the user (I don't imagine DB mailing out post-its with the correct spelling to stick on each page), then it's important enough to have edited by someone who:
a) can spell, and finds spelling errors glaring
b) knows the rules of grammar, and when it's ok to violate them
c) knows effective writing, and can suggest edits that enhance another author's piece without changing the overall writing style
In other words, you need an editor. A real editor.
There's a reason people get to use it as a job title.
I agree with everything Tzipporah wrote at 7:55 PM.
Here's how it breaks down for me:
1) My eyes gloss more easily over typos online than in print. It has to do with how I "skim read" and absorb information. (I read faster and retain information more easily from printed materials).
In addition, I read differently when I'm reading for content alone rather than to appreciate literature/writing quality.
2) I don't read everything posted on this blog or any other. I have noticed typos here before. Usually, it's not the deciding factor in whether I make it through a blog post or comment thread. I tune out often enough for other reasons that I can't make any generalizations about what the overall writing quality of a Dovbear essay is. For example, I have no interest in political posts or debate on this blog, which means I don't read posts that are titled, "Hey look Right-wingers! I'm making a Left-wing point!" I have no interest in reading ad hominem attacks, so I give up on many comment threads that I'm sure later on have interesting debate and discussion. I'll even admit that I found the amount of "Buy my Book" postings and references from Dovbear to be distasteful and a turn off, so for a while, I stopped checking this blog for that reason.
3) I don't like commenting unless I've read all the comments in a thread. At the same time, besides skipping name-calling and ad hominem attacks, I often skip comments that have many typos or grammatical errors.
4) Just as I find typos dissonant, I also find the transliteration choices that Bray uses to be extremely distracting. When the Hebrew is included, I am grateful, because I can read that and let my eyes skip over the rest. When there is ONLY the transliterated words as Bray chooses to provide and no Hebrew, I can't make it more than a handful of words before I tune out. This has nothing to do with "correctness" (i.e., the proper way to transliterate Hebrew) or anything to do with the quality of what Bray may be writing. It is about norms in transliteration that my brain is used to processing. Nothing more, nothing less.
5) I have done editing work before, and I have had my own writing published, which means I have experience working with editors. There is no substitute for having someone else's eyes looking over your work, no matter how qualified you personally may be to edit.
Copy-editing and fact-checking is a lot of work. That's why people get paid to do it. It is a MAJOR undertaking to place this role on a friend or relative who is a professional or even a hobbyist who enjoys reading Garner's.
At the end of the day, what I wrote above and what I'm writing here in this comment is solely about my tastes and preferences. I do a tremendous amount of reading for my job, which makes me more picky about what I'm interested/willing to read as my "relaxation" material. And while I am always looking to add material to my sefarim/reference library, I am reluctant to buy books in general. I rely on libraries a lot(whether through work access or the public library near home).
We are all unique in our reading habits and preferences. There is no right or wrong here. Maybe if I could browse the first chapter of this book at a friend's house or the library, I could decide if the typos were too much for me.
I just wanted to give a voice here to the opinion that typos and/or grammatical errors really DO matter. Most people seem to understand that you can't submit a resume or cover letter with typos and be taken seriously for a job. As far as I'm concerned, the same is true for material that you are committing to print.
Offwinger - 4) Just as I find typos dissonant, I also find the transliteration choices that Bray uses to be extremely distracting. When the Hebrew is included, I am grateful, because I can read that and let my eyes skip over the rest. When there is ONLY the transliterated words as Bray chooses to provide and no Hebrew, I can't make it more than a handful of words before I tune out. This has nothing to do with "correctness" (i.e., the proper way to transliterate Hebrew) or anything to do with the quality of what Bray may be writing. It is about norms in transliteration that my brain is used to processing. Nothing more, nothing less.
I completely agree! I thought I was the only one that found Brays method of transliteration to be distracting (and annoying, and more difficult to absorb, etc), but it looks like I'm not.
me three ...or is that thu-ri?
hey distracting and annoying is what trolls do.
Commenting by HaloScan
