I'm surprised that you characterized Jim McCue's essay as being on
Lawrence Rainey 's proofreading. By saying this, you reduce all errors,
all omissions, all disagreements others have with LR to typos; McCue
doesn't do that and neither do I in my review. There are many good
things in the books, and there are many difficulties. Proofreading
alone won't address the problems pointed out, though there is no reason
the writer or the press has to agree that they are problems.