My comment regarding the writing style would be that it was very clear and straightforward, non-obfuscatory and never indulging in needless and gratuitous polysyllabic or neologistic verbiage. Not the least bit pedantic too.
I certainly agree (although I'll say it without your pretentiousness) that there are not too many big or made-up words. I never suggested there were. I would, however, contest your assertion that the whole of the book is very clear and straightforward.
If you will, take a second look at the very first full page of the very first chapter. The last paragraph on page 13 reads as follows:
SDI Solo Diving Manual:
The second flaw in the buddy pair logic is that the ONLY perfect team is two people and this configuration is easy for newbie divers to work within right from dive one. This is simply untrue. A two-person team IS one of many configurations that CAN work but it is not intuitive to a newbie diver and requires skills that are by no means innate and that are seldom drilled thoroughly enough to stick in today's diver-training classes.
Taking the first sentence apart (just as you learned when diagramming sentences in grade school), we have: "The second flaw in the buddy pair logic is that the ONLY perfect team is two people". Next we split off the prepositional phrase, leaving: "The second flaw... is that the ONLY perfect team is two people".
Is this saying that the buddy pair logic is flawed because it contradicts a concept we know is true (i.e. that the only perfect team is two people, that is, a buddy pair)? That makes no sense, but that's what was written. Obviously, the intention is to say that the second flaw is *the belief that* the only perfect team is two people. It is that mistaken belief that is the flaw, but that is not what was written.
Unfortunately, this is only half of the problem. What is "the second flaw"? "The second flaw" is the belief that the only perfect team is two people, but according to the rest of this one sentence, "the second flaw" is *also* that "this configuration is easy for newbie divers to work within right from dive one." The belief that newbie divers can easily work in buddy teams is unrelated to the belief that the only perfect team is two people. The flawed belief that newbie divers can dive with each other with no consideration given to safety or self-sufficiency is a *third* flaw.
The second sentence is certainly clear and concise. :biggrin:
Now, as to the third sentence, *surely* you can make no claim that it is clear and concise. At the very least, it is a stunning example of a run-on sentence. Also, the skills should be "drilled in today's diver-training classes". They should not "stick in today's diver-training classes". The sentence in the book is a classic case of a misplaced modifier. You know what it *intended* to say, but it does not *actually* say what was intended.
So, if I edit the sentence just to address those two points, we have: "A two-person team IS one of many configurations that CAN work, but it is not intuitive to a newbie diver. It requires skills that are by no means innate and that are seldom drilled thoroughly enough in today's diver-training classes to stick." As you can hopefully see, splitting the sentence in two greatly improves the readability, even without rewriting it.
Maybe it's a comedown for you after reading James Joyce, Proust or similar blather but seriously, what do you expect Shakespeare and Hemingway?
There is no reason to turn a few comments about poor editorial quality into an
ad hominem attack on my person and my reading preferences. For your information, while I enjoy high literature, I also quite enjoy cheap trade paperbacks and even internet fan fiction. That is no reason to give a poorly edited book a "get out of being reviewed free" card.
I don't expect perfection, although I am quite happy on those rare occasions I find it. I was rather surprised at the extent to which the prose of the book failed to measure up to the quality I've come to expect in diver training materials. The NAUI materials with which I am most familiar are likely far more revised than the rather new SDI Solo Diving Manual, and I certainly hope the latter will improve with time. As it stands, the prose is in rather dire need of some editorial affection.
You say yourself that "Second, for the most part, I can accept the book". That's the most important point isn't it?
How many times have you read something that might have been stylistically impressive but "said" nothing worthwhile? This is after all a Scuba Forum not an English Literature Forum.
As you quote, I was sufficiently pleased with the quality of the *content*. Unlike yourself, however, I feel strongly that the quality of the prose should aspire to the same heights as the quality of the content. Consider the extreme of the poster who writes in ALL CAPS, paying no heed to line breaks or paragraphs or even minimal punctuation. Do readers place the same weight on such posts as on those which are a pleasure to read?
Inasmuch as you are so bent out of shape on this matter why don't you "whip out a red pen and give the thing a thorough editing job before sending the corrected book back to SDI for their response".
I am deeply sorry that your lack of familiarity with the usual style in which substandard prose of a work is critiqued has led you to believe I am bent out of shape. That is most certainly not the case. I would direct you to some of my favorite reviews panning the works of certain best-selling writers, but alas, I fear they would not be appreciated.
May it suffice for me to say that my comment about editing the book and forwarding the results to SDI was said in fun. I meant to playfully pan the prose, but it was not simply an idle comment. I know with certainty that I can quite easily turn in a result of much higher quality than the current edition. (Much of the prose would be completely devoid of ink, but where ink would be found, it would be found in copious amounts.) Considering my appreciation of the content, I would consider it both an entertaining diversion for myself and a service to those who read any future editions.
I happen to have think that there is more scuba "wisdom" in this little book than anything I have read to date.
I do not dispute that being the case. I have made a point to use the word "prose" to indicate that I am commenting on the *form* of the writing and
not on the *content*. I have found valuable insight on these forums in posts that are certainly not of high literary quality. Obviously, I would not expect *them* to be published without significant editing.
(Yes, yes... unless they were published in a "scrapbook"-style collection in which the online forum form is itself part of the content. I didn't think I needed to mention that, but just in case... :biggrin
