I am a fan of ebooks. (Or e-books, e-Books, eBooks…whatever floats your boat.) One thing I can’t say I’m a fan of is sloppy, irritating, tedious, “creative” formatting. This is one reason so many people, when asked, still prefer good old paper-based books rather than their digital equivalents. It’s like asking someone, “Would you prefer a free $100 bill, or a free root canal?”

Desktop publishing (you know, computer + publishing software + laser printer = hell) unleashed a torrent of 8-1/2″ X 11″ flyers that, while marginally better on the eyes than the telephone poles upon which they eventually found themselves stapled, were not much better at effective communicating.

A new generation of desktop publishing, whereby the software (Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat) changed the end product (PDFs rather than paper flyers), didn’t exactly create a quantum leap in readability.

I suspect not one in one hundred ebook publishers is even vaguely aware of the time, effort and careful consideration that goes into not only formatting, but typography, when publishing a traditional (dead tree-based) book. There is both art and science to putting ink on paper in such a way that the reader wants to turn the page, let alone pick up a book in the first place.

A few years ago, Michael Ammar released what could be considered a cutting edge design in his book, “The Complete Cups and Balls Book.” Some of the reviews were not kind — not so much for the content, which was top-notch, but for the manner in which it was presented. Michael Close gave it three thumbs up in his September 1998 MAGIC Magazine Review of the book. I thought the book was great, but you know me and my penchant for being in the minority.

I am a huge, unabashed fanboy of Tom Peters. My introduction to the Peters Way was probably the same as most people I know, his book, “In Search of Excellence“ — possibly the largest business book I ever purchased and actually read more than once. (In Barnes & Noble the other day I noticed the newer format of the book reduces the typesize and, therefore, the apparent formidable page count.) His live seminar on innovation is one of the best I have experienced.

His recent book — “Re-imagine!“ — is over 350 pages in length, and one of the hardest books for me to wade through. And it’s not because of the context; the text is fun to read. No, the problem is its layout design. Wow. That’s not the kind of innovation I enjoy. I have to force myself to open the lid to that otherwise excellent book. It’s not exactly like taking a spoonful of castor oil, but my hand attempts to stray over to a Scarpetta novel instead.

But this is about ebooks.

Who does magic ebooks right? Richard Osterlind’s eBooks are probably the best formatted I have in my eLibrary. Jim Sisti is responsible for that.

Michael Close’s “Closely Guarded Secrets“ is a joy to read, and I have over and over and over. Michael’s wife, Lisa, is responsible for that.

Beyond that? Hmmm. Nothing comes immediately to mind, and that says something to me.

This topic was brought to mind after reading C.E. Petit’s blog entry, “On the Page.” Scrivener’s Error, Petit’s blog and part of my daily routine, is described thusly:

Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing!) from the author’s side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting.

Having only played a lawyer on television, and having taken courses that were to set me on the lawyering path (which path was abandoned when I discovered computer software development,) I have more than a passing interest in the law. Blogging lawyers are another gift to me from the Internet.

But I am a fan of Petit for another reason. From his web page:

The people who should make decisions concerning content use are those who create and use the content, with advice from professionals and marketers—not the other way around

If you’ve been reading Escamoteurettes for any length of time at all, it should be obvious my stand on that quote.

“On the Page“ (at least the rant portion of it) discusses the subject of typography. If you publish ebooks, or you’re wondering why you find some (most?) ebooks a chore to read, Petit’s rant is worth a look.

It also points to a terrific free resource, a PDF titled, “Painting with Print” written by Ruth Anne Robbins. Published by The Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors and distributed on the web site of the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, you’ll have to visit Scrivener’s Error to get to the link. (And while you’re there, why not take a look around and expand your knowledge and vocabulary?)

Read ’em and reap.