On the Second Day of Christmas

...I am cleaning up from yesterday in an attempt to get ready for the extended family Christmas party on Sunday.

We had a lovely time, truly, we did. But it shall go down in family folk lore as the Poo Christmas of '08. No more on THAT story will be coming, ever.

And, after I sort, crop and tweak, I may have a picture or two to show. Happy children, happy adults, good food and good family time. It does not get better than that.

Now, on to the 'angsty' Judy sort of post we've all grown accustom to.

While reclining on the couch in the early morning hours, I picked up a book that Oldest Son gave to his father for Christmas (everyone is SO excited that thggm reads now.)

The book is "Yours, Jack - Spiritual Direction from C.S. Lewis". The book is a fabulous collection of letters written by C.S. Lewis, something and someone I find extremely interesting and THGGM is growing to enjoy immensely.

But, being the angsty hormonally challenged tired overwhelmed Judy that I am today, this is what I noticed when I read the very first page, the "Editor's Note".

Now, please, bear with me. This weird little error in editing is on the first page? The Editor's Note page? The FIFTH word in the entire book? A book about someone who was extremely word aware?

Here, before I tell you what it actually IS, I must interject that this will seem odd coming from the likes of me, who fills her blog posts with many poor examples of spelling, grammar and even cognitive thought. But, still. I do not do this for a living wage. No. I do it because. Just because. I have no idea why I do it, I just DO. When I go back and find errors in my posts, I tend to leave them as errors, so you, my dear blog readers, will know what I have known for decades. I'm not all that bright.

Anyway, I give you here the very first sentence on the very first page of the very first thing I read this morning:

"Unless you were a person friend of C.S. Lewis, or one of his many correspondents, you are probably not aware that he went by "Jack" to his friends, a name he landed on as a child and decided it suited him better than his given one (Clive Staples Lewis)."

Now. Did you SEE it?

The fifth word?

"person"?

Should that not read "personal"?

One would think.

Unless, of course, here the editor is referring to the numerous alien, animal and inanimate object friends that C.S. Lewis had, which then would make that fifth word permissible.

Really. Does this sort of thing bother anyone else?

(seriously. i need a cookie.)