I’ve read my fair share of books in my life; some of it from university studies and a lot of it simply because I enjoy reading. I wouldn’t say that I read more than anybody I know, but since I travel a lot I spend a lot of time in hotels and at airports (not to mention on airplanes), and often by myself; books provide good companionship at these times.

Some of the books I read are instructional books of one kind or another. Books that try to teach me something, that is. Like Stephen Hawking’s “Cosmos” or a book about history. Or books about poker.

I’m the kind of person who likes to buy books - I prefer owning my own copy rather than borrowing from a public library. I like the look of a fully packed home library, I guess. The reason I bring this up is because for each of the books I’ve read, I’ve paid the author some amount of money for the privilege of reading it, at least indirectly.

And why does that matter? Because when I buy an instructional book, I don’t pay money to the authors because they’re so very knowledgeable. I pay them money on the promise that the book will teach me the things they know. This is an obvious point, I would think.

Let me re-state it in a way that is seemingly less-than-obvious to a lot of poker book authors:

If the book contains great information but does a poor job of explaining it, the book doesn’t deliver.

Less than obvious, I said, because Sklansky & Malmuth for instance - proudly, almost - point out in the introduction to Hold ‘em Poker for Advanced Players that they’re poker players, not writers, and they don’t care about grammar and all that stuff. I’m paraphrasing, because I don’t have the book here with me, but I’m pretty sure I’m getting the general sentiment right. And I agree with what they’re saying, in the sense that when it comes to spelling vs. quality information, information takes priority. This isn’t really about Sklansky or Malmuth though, but their sentiment is a seemingly common one.

Bad spelling (and/or grammar) doesn’t bother me in itself, either. I’m perfectly capable of understanding what the author means when he writes “stratagy.” Something else bothers me about the the typos, though, and it’s this:

When there are many typos in a published book, it’s an indication that the book hasn’t been proof-read thoroughly. And I want my books to be very thoroughly proof-read, because - as I said above - it’s not what the authors know that I pay for, it’s their ability to explain it to me. A writer of course knows exactly what he’s trying to say. When he reads something he’s just written, it’s probably going to seem crystal clear to him. But he needs other people - preferably people who aren’t already knowledgeable about the subject - to give him feedback on whether or not the explanation is satisfactory.

Certainly a book may be very good in its very first version. Perhaps an author manages to write a full 300 pages explaining the most complex ideas simply without having anyone as much as look at the manuscript before it went to print. Does it seem likely to you, though?

Let me re-state the main point: It’s not the presence of typos that’s the problem. It’s the fact that where there are typos, there generally aren’t proof-readers, and without proof-readers I’m not sure that the author does a good job of explaining the ideas that he’s trying to convey. A good idea would be, in the case of poker books, to let a novice poker player read the chapter that was just finished, and then have the novice explain to the author what the chapter tries to tell him. If he gets it wrong at all, re-write it. Keep this up until the point that you’re trying to get across is crystal clear.

Some responsibility of understanding a text will always be on the reader. A writer can’t compensate for stupidity; it’s not possible. Nor can he - or should he - take things like how some readers may not have English as a primary language into account, at least not at the expense of clarity. But not making the effort to see to it that the text really does emphasize what its intended to, means that the author has not done his or her job.

And they owe it to those of us that pay them to do their job.