In Dubio pro Reo: "Every word she writes is false, including ‘and’ and ‘but'.”

I'm 200 pages in, and there's a howler on almost every page. Should I critique it in writing, on YouTube, or both?

The only copy of Daniel Hillers’ “In Dubio pro Reo” known to have been delivered to a customer so far.

I have a small collection of rare books and first editions, and this is my latest acquisition: The only copy of Daniela Hillers’ Book In Dubio pro Reo which is known to have actually been delivered to a paying customer so far. The book arrived four months late, but who’s counting? I am in touch with several people who have ordered the book, and none has yet gotten their copy. Nor have I seen any indication on social media that anyone has received a copy of this book yet — although Hillers has blocked me on most of her channels, so I may be missing something. I don’t think so, though.

I have so far read 200 pages of this 576-page book, which is what inspired my citation of the classic zinger from American playwright Mary McCarthy in the title of this post. I’ve taken detailed notes, and have developed a four-part classification scheme for the book I call MIBUNO: Mistakes, Inconsistencies, Bullshit, and Nonsense. About 1/3 of the book consists of quotations from interview partners, I include their statements in this schema (As we will see, the interview partners contribute as many howlers as Hillers herself):

• Mistake: These are factual assertions which are either factually wrong or which are directly contradicted by other, better evidence which Hillers or her interview partners do not reveal to the reader, whether because they are ignorant of this evidence or because they want to mislead the audience.

• Inconsistencies: These are statements which contradict other statements within this book. They sometimes occur right after one another!

• Bullshit: There are 3 kinds of bullshit. First, the Harry Frankfurt kind, in which the speaker makes a statement and is indifferent to whether it’s true. Second are stale arguments which have been trotted out and refuted dozens of times already. The third kind are controversial, important factual assertions Hillers presents without any evidence to back them up.

• Nonsense (Geschwafel): These are statements, usually from Hillers, which are usually grammatically flawed and just plain make no sense. You read them again and again and wonder what she was trying to say.

I’ve so far identified 25 mistakes in the first 1/3 of the book, so it seems likely that I’ll end up with about 75. And that’s just the mistakes.

There’s going to be a huge amount of material for this review. I’m wondering how to proceed, and would appreciate some input from you on the following questions:

1. Should I start my review now, and make it an ongoing affair (Parts 1-15?)

2. Should I do it in writing, or on YouTube, or both?

Splitting everything into sections would enable faster production, but might get a bit tiresome. Perhaps it would be better to wait a few weeks or so and bring out a very long post/video on all the mistakes, then turn to the other categories.

If I choose to wait, I might do this in just 4 longish YouTube videos, posting the scripts for them here. The other approach would be to post the 15 shorter installments, then wrap them up and condense them into one video.

What do you think, gentle readers? Quick and dirty, or slow and thoughtful? In any event, strap yourselves in for some fun. As the saying goes, there’s a lot to unpack here.