I'm behind schedule on the book, and attempting to catch up this weekend. My comebacks to the idiot intern who has been assigned to "edit" me follow:

Page 4: “marines” deliberately left uncapitalized (it’s “250 U.S. Marines,” but “250 marines”). See Chicago Manual of Style 13th Edition (hereafter CMS-13), 7.93.

Page 5: I don’t find “an estimated third of a million” to be significantly more awkward than your suggestion “nearly half a million,” but let’s compromise with “over a quarter of a million,” which has the virtue of being numerically closer to the actual figure than “nearly half.”

Page 5, penultimate line: No. That comma does not belong. On commas generally: Where your recommended placements do not offend me, I have generally accommodated you; elsewhere I have not. Please refer to the CMS-13 5.24-5.67. See also “open” vs. “close” punctuation, CMS-13 5.1-5.2

Page 11: Italics for “San Francisco,” yes; italics for “The,” no. See CMS-13 7.131 (note that it’s also “The New York Times,” and CMS is adamant and explicit in excluding the definite article)

Page 13: Had I meant “criticize,” I would not have not have employed “excoriate.” Be good enough to assume that I do not pluck words out of my ass.

Page 15: “April 18th.,” —As previously noted, I do not presume to alter the orthography and punctuation of primary sources. [X] typed it that way, and so it will remain.

Page 16: Again, while we may condense, we cannot otherwise modify primary sources.

Page 17: Fine, you can have “with a will,” although I can’t begin to imagine what the objection to it might be.

Page 17: See page 13. Sheesh.

Page 19: Ya know, upon reflection even I will concede that “raiments” is a trifle—how shall I put it—a trifle obscure for this century, but good lord, “an array” is an almost surrealistically unsuitable as a substitute. I’ve dropped the word altogether.

Page 20: The photograph dates from 2006. I don’t know that it’s necessary to state this in the caption.

Page 31: “far the largest” (vs. your “by far the largest”) is a perfectly acceptable and established usage, even if you are not familiar with it. I’ve rendered it here as “the largest.”

Page 33: Nix on your line 1 comma. Penultimate line, same paragraph, emphatically no on the comma. Absolutely not. You need to purchase a copy of the Chicago Manual and sleep with it under your pillow.

Page 37: Fine, your IMDB chops pass muster, but I can’t agree here. If [X] had been portrayed by, oh, James Mason or Leo G. Carroll, that would be worth mentioning, but since [Y] was an obscure (if obviously hardworking) character actor who spent almost his entire career in television and is today forgotten (I am willing to wager that if you stopped pedestrians on Market Street and asked them to identify [Y], you would reach your next birthday before anyone responded with the correct answer), and since he does not even appear in the film credits, naming him here is a distraction.

Page 39: “The Beaux Arts aesthetic has been relentless…” (“Choice of wording gives pause”) And I’m very glad of that. During the pause, the reader may call to mind the earlier discussion (p. 25) of the Beaux Arts “hierarchy of spaces.” Choice of wording stands.

Page 39, third paragraph: (Is “s” needed?) —Since there’s more than one conduit, I thought that throwing in the “s” would be a tidy and economical way of conveying the fact.

Page 39, third paragraph: I love a semicolon in its place. Its place is not where you have indicated, however. Better to split the sentence at that point.

Page 41, first line: Let’s just assume going forward that when I ignore your inserted commas I have my reasons.

Page 41, third paragraph: Your substitution of “utilized on the seismic retrofit” for “brought to bear on the project” strikes me as unnecessary, and would also involve us in a repetition of “retrofit” in consecutive sentences.

Page 44: 1880’s —Nix on the apostrophe. See CMS-13 6.9.

Page 45: [X] did not employ a comma where you wish to insert one, and even though I am inclined to agree with you here, we will respect his wishes given that we are quoting him.

Page 45, last line: No, this is not an appropriate place for a semicolon either.

I feel in a way like some fanatical Christianist waving the Holy Scriptures around when I cite the Chicago Manual of Style, but this tome has been my oracle for several decades now (I've sorta stopped with the thirteenth edition because the fifteenth seemed rather tarted up). I can't wait for her to throw whatever bullshit authority she's relying upon up at me: The AP Style Manual? The University of Chicago pisses on the Associated Press! Hell, even non-believers acknowledge a hierarchy of superstition, and grant the Church of Rome more street cred than the First True Bupkis Church of Holy Snakehandlers of Rectum, Alabama.

I enter the new year full of piss and vinegar, and particularly piss.

cordially,