I have read the first thirty pages of this book and have already lost patience. Not with the author. I admire Lodge's fiction and criticism: his acumen, his discernment, his slow-cooking humour. I'm just sick of the constant slew of typographical errors that irritate, disrupt and mislead. Here is a sample:
p. 4 "its owns" for "its own"
p. 14 "it was became" for "it was because"
p. 15 "war would be an acceptable synonym for must have been" for "was..."
p. 21 "I have, never felt" for "I have never felt"
p. 24 "when parsed would be awkward and jarring" for "when passed would be awkward and jarring"
p. 29 "Thus notion of style" for "This notion of style"
After all, this is a book about language and meaning; it contains a large number of close readings, which depend implicitly on the quality of editorial control. This problem may be common to Routledge Classic editions. Colin Smith's translation of Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception (Routledge Classics): An Introduction
is similarly unreadable. I wonder if these texts have been scanned from older editions. But even so, shouldn't there still be a copy-editing process?
I appreciate the effort Routledge has made to reprint a large number of valuable and interesting books at affordable prices, but there is little point in doing this if the texts are thereby rendered corrupt and less readable.
Another frustrating and disappointing purchase. If you're interested in the book, find another edition.