This is a strange and interesting cultural artefact, and it begs the question of whether something like this could happen in the bloggy web 2.0 internet age. See, this is a Piers Anthony novel where at least half of the book's content is Anthony railing at the publishing industry and slamming his copyeditors for their perceived failings. The book's broken up into three sections – an introduction, to explain what the hell is going on with the presentation, the text of the novel itself (a Heinleinian back to nature free-Earth screed), and a 'Notes' section where he comments rather snarkily against his copyeditors and the unnecessary cuts.

Anthony's wikipedia entry details the dispute in short – he produced a book on spec, which was accepted as-is; Editor then asked him to make many changes, and allow another author to 'retype' it, while telling this other author that he was a full collaborator and could make changes. The book was originally published in the form seen here.

Anthony complained to the publisher about this breach of contract, and after the Editor had been fired, and the line dismantled, he was given the opportunity to have it published elsewhere – the form with heavy notes that I came across in an Oxfam. The novel itself is rather reactionary, and fully a product of the mid seventies, and some of the comments by the editors that Anthony condemns were in fact rather valid, in my own opinion. I think the book remains notable both for the sad commentary about authors rights, Anthony's own less than stellar opinion about the poor copyeditors stuck with the novel, and the utterly hilarious irritated rebuttals he offers for their marginal nitpicks and questions. It's a must read if you like absurd stories of professionalism gone awry, and a wet dream if you're a frustrated author who ever dreamed of slamming your critics for minor plot points that do make sense, dammit.