Is 78 Days worth it?
I just bought this book a few days ago since it has been on my radar for some time now and although I am only about a week into the lessons I have to say I am a bit disappointed. To be clear, I'm not disappointed in most of the ideas, that is, the meat of the book, but the editing is poor and shoddy to the point that it begins to interfere with the meaning and with my trust of the author's ideas.
For example, Page 16 in the Lets Get Started section he recaps, "...the major cards are the nouns, the minor cards are the verbs, and the court cards are the adjectives. We can add a word ourselves to describe how we interpret the sentence which becomes the adverb..." [emphasis in original]
Then on the same page in the first example he has of this method he reads The Tower (major) The Three of Cups (Minor) and the King of Pentacles as, "The friendly group (3C) broke up (tower) steadily (K Pents). " The only problem is that he used the minor card as a noun, the major as a verb, and the court card as an adverb, bypassing the use of an adjective completely.
So I am left with either using this method in the professed way or in the way it has actually been shown, in the example, to be used. So which way is right? This leads to reader (me) confusion and makes this method less useful to me as he has presented it.
I could perhaps forgive this lack of grammatical understanding, and I did, except that it seems like the rest of the book is plagued with some of the same types of errors that could have been fixed had they employed a decent copy-editor before publication. For one example, in the Page of Cups lesson under the Travel and Lifestyle section the authors inexplicably reference the Page of Wands. Is this a true reference or an editing mistake? My belief is the latter.
Perhaps some people here will call me nit-picky or claim that it is not important because the meat of the book is still valid, and while I can agree with this assessment to a point, I find myself questioning the validity of the ideas contained within a poorly-written and poorly edited piece, especially when some (if not all) of the ideas are materially affected by the editing. (Like my first example.)
Has anyone else noticed these problems and/or been affected by them at all? Is it still worth me reading the rest of this book?