🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BtA7CB.3zv@gate.demon.co.uk>, James Petts <pettsj@visigoth.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
> In article <ROLFL.92Aug20112635@karl.uio.no> Rolf Lindgren,
> rolfl@karl.uio.no writes:
>>Why hasn't anybody written a book explaining LaTeX? IMHO, the LaTeXbook
>>needs a companion volume far more than the TeXbook does.
 
> I tend to agree with you, but although there are a handful (3 or 4 ?) of 
> LaTeX books around, I think that because LaTeX is perceived as "easier" 
> than TeX, the books are generally not of the same standard. 

I think, in fact, that the problem is almost exactly that:
Neither of the two LaTeX books available quite gets what LaTeX is
all about (in fact one claims explicitly that it's simply "easy"
TeX, which is far from the case). Neither measures up to the
original LaTeX book which is better than many think (the secret
is to approach it in the correct order--read the opening section
not the #@%^ reference section).

Mine will be done Real Soon Now (yes, RSN) at which point there
should be a viable alternative.

-dh