I have some editorial experience.  Editing is not even remotely comparable to censorship.  Sometimes the point of editing is to save the author from his or her own worst tendencies.

I agree with BPaulsen, if you're able to read you should be able to decide whether you want to continue reading something or not. If there's anyone to blame it's the reviewers who may not have prepared you for what you bought. And generally speaking, reviews are getting increasingly important since most buyers don't get the chance to leaf through the books in the local chess store anymore.

The big problem with censorship is that it depends too much on the whim of the censors. We've probably all heard stories of how great novels like e.g. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Slaughter-House Five got banned from some American schools in the 80s simply for containing a certain word...

And that "political correctness" (whatever that really means...) has now infected most countries - around here a librarian recently wanted to weed out Tintin from the children's department...

If no one is allowed to write anything that might upset anyone then reading would become a rather boring activity indeed.

However, judging only by some of the examples here (as I don't have the book) it's understandable that some people take offence. Though the offence might be inferred by the reader and not the author's intention.

For example, if you mention that "this was the first time X lost to a Russian" it would probably be interpreted differently by most readers than "this was the first time X lost to another (nationality / ethnic minority / other identifiable group)". But it depends a lot on the prejudices of the interpreter - for instance are Russians just strong chessplayers or was it referring to a perceived predilection for vodka?

Anyway, besides censorship there's also a question of correct placement - so I wouldn't protest if the moderators decide to move this debate to General Chess.

BPaulsen wrote on 09/29/12 at 00:47:17:



Oh, come on! It's quite possible to write entertainingly and enthusiastically without being  obnoxious. Just look at Moskalenko's works, for example. So the alternative to Esserman is not ECO. You're ignoring my claim the much of what Esserman has to say is excessively pointed, faintly nasty, or just plain weird. 

Editors moderate writers all the time. It's not censorship, because the writer is free to take his work elsewhere or publish it himself.

Should those desiring to study the Morra really have to read Esserman's pointed remarks about Ben Finegold, to cite but one example?

Even chess books should be in moderately good taste. If you think Esserman's writing conforms to that, fine. But that, not whether chess books should be dull or not, is where we disagree.

Markovich wrote on 09/28/12 at 15:49:33:


Thanks. We'll see. I might have to have a look at it first.

From reading the discussion, I have to say I really am hesitant whether or not I'll buy the book. I wanted to buy the book, but I am not sure I'd like to support the "style" of writing. Seriously. I have pretty thick skin, but as stated, this is supposed to be a book about chess, right?

Markovich wrote on 09/28/12 at 00:40:03:


That sounds like exactly the kind of thing a Schemer would say. (I'm just joking of course - the opportunity was too good to resist.)

But seriously, I strongly disagree with you about the editing comments. For one thing, there was no such laziness in the editing, and in fact we were quite meticulous about certain things; for instance, I even made corrections to some of the James Bond quotes after consulting my personal DVD collection. My only real regret is the notation/diagram errors on some of the chapter cover pages, which somehow slipped through proofreading. Most annoying.

But let's return to the central issue here. Esserman's writing style oozes with personality and enthusiasm for his subject. As a publisher, we love it when our authors exhibit this kind of passion, and the last thing we want to do is edit the work into some kind of dry, colourless textbook. Of course the style will not be to everybody's taste, but on the flipside we have had a great deal of positive feedback, and many readers have loved Esserman's approach.

Personally I would much rather produce a book that most people love and a few people hate, than one that everyone perceives as "okay". And while we at Quality Chess certainly take notice of criticisms, I personally make no apologies for the style of the book, and certainly not for this comment about losing to a woman for the first time, which I don't believe was written in anything like the tone you seem to imagine it was.

Well, this is about substance, not style. But I'm not going to spend my time recounting here all the weird and faintly nasty things that Esserman has to say. Of course one can ignore it, or decide not to buy the book at all, but criticism has its place. People desiring to learn about the Morra should not have to confront all this. The chess is very good, but publishers could have done a better job. My opinion.

I don't think it's a question of a thick skin or a thin one. It's just plain obnoxious when someone says, "This was the first time that Krampatskij lost -- to a woman." I don't think it's the sort of thing that good editing lets through. It is, however, just one example of obnoxiousness in Esserman's writing that good editing would have moderated. I believe I understand something of the financial and other pressures on chess publishers, and given a manuscript with excellent chess content and at least grammatical English, I am sure there are strong incentives to just go ahead and publish. But the plain fact is, much of the writing in this book is not in good taste.

I highly commend this book for its chess and for its physical quality, but I wish that a much stronger editorial hand had been taken with Esserman's writing.