Tentatively, Convenience's Reviews > a manual of style

1st off, my bk data for this follows conventional practices of decoding information. Eg: The front cover has what's usually written on the back - ie: an implied publisher's name: "a manual of style" followed by a P O Box address - both placed at the bottom. Combining that [what I'll show to be a misreading] w/ the sparse internal contents - eg:

"This introduction would discuss the different types of writing services I can--offer. Etc., etc., etc."

& it seems 'reasonable' to call this bk "a manual of style" - esp given that the introduction sentence is most likely lifted from a more conventional "Manual of Style". HOWEVER, if we look at the back cover [wch you can't do but I can], 'we' see written:

"myentirecarrer
hasbeeninpursuit
ofblotnech

part two








anon"

Given the positioning of the words & their nature, this is more likely the title & "anon" is more likely the author's name. But it's on the back, so I use conventional practices & treat it more as back-cover material - perhaps a blurb. But, let's face it,
"myentirecarrer
hasbeeninpursuit
ofblotnech

part two" is the name of this bk, NOT "a manual of style" & the author's name is "anon" & NOT "John Berndt" & "a manual of style" is the name of the publisher & NOT "Dialectical Immaterialism Press" - in fact, "Berndt" & "Dialectical" are nowhere to be found - for that matter, neither is "1990" - the purported publication date. SO, has the person who's placed this bk in the GoodReads database [myself] deliberately 'normalized' this bk by treating the available info in accordance w/ the conventional signs & privileged information ["Berndt" & "Dialectical"]? Or has this person [myself] confused things even further? Let's consult the "manual of style", shall we?

"This thei eit vmekt whie thei ehthek v thei the the hethe thlc.we the c.e. the the c.e.t c.c.e theiic this theii theie thei the the."