Corrections to OCA 1984 Liturgy Book?

[Pedro]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

 

[ialmisry]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

I hope they fixed the ghastly "The time has come to begin the service."

 

[Schultz]

I own it, but don't have it with me right now.  Aside from the line ialmisry posted, what else should be corrected from the 1984 book?  I'll check when I get home.

 

[Subdeacon Michael]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

I hope they fixed the ghastly "The time has come to begin the service."

Is that how it rendered "It is time for the Lord to act"?  :-[

That's worse than the americanisms in the OP, (pace, DavidBryan), that troubled my delicate English sensibilities.  ;D :angel:

M

 

[Iconodule]

I own it, but don't have it with me right now.  Aside from the line ialmisry posted, what else should be corrected from the 1984 book?  I'll check when I get home.

I hope they corrected "for He is a good God who lovest mankind." Also, I think somewhere it talks about God pouring forth "immorality" (instead of immortality).

 

[Pedro]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

I hope they fixed the ghastly "The time has come to begin the service."

Is that how it rendered "It is time for the Lord to act"?  :-[

That's worse than the americanisms in the OP, (pace, DavidBryan), that troubled my delicate English sensibilities.  ;D :angel:

M

ialmisry -- I glanced at a copy this morning; indeed, it now reads, "It is time for the Lord to act."

M -- Forgive me, and allow me to make amends!

"Might anyone be aware of anything in particular which the editors of the St. Tikhon's Press 2010 Divine Liturgy book may have changed (for the better) from the 1984 edition?  Knowledgeable reviews thus far have leaned towards the positive, but I have yet to hear anything specific cited regarding said reprinting.  Were anyone to put forward any pertinent information, I would be most appreciative."

 

[Second Chance]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

I hope they fixed the ghastly "The time has come to begin the service."

Is that how it rendered "It is time for the Lord to act"?  :-[

That's worse than the americanisms in the OP, (pace, DavidBryan), that troubled my delicate English sensibilities.  ;D :angel:

M

ialmisry -- I glanced at a copy this morning; indeed, it now reads, "It is time for the Lord to act."

M -- Forgive me, and allow me to make amends!

"Might anyone be aware of anything in particular which the editors of the St. Tikhon's Press 2010 Divine Liturgy book may have changed (for the better) from the 1984 edition?  Knowledgeable reviews thus far have leaned towards the positive, but I have yet to hear anything specific cited regarding said reprinting.  Were anyone to put forward any pertinent information, I would be most appreciative."

The English seem to have very delicate sensibilities. OTH, I cannot deny the beauty of a well-crafted phrase or two in King's English. Bravo!

 

[ialmisry]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

I hope they fixed the ghastly "The time has come to begin the service."

Is that how it rendered "It is time for the Lord to act"?  :-[

That's worse than the americanisms in the OP, (pace, DavidBryan), that troubled my delicate English sensibilities.  ;D :angel:

M

ialmisry -- I glanced at a copy this morning; indeed, it now reads, "It is time for the Lord to act."

GLORY TO GOD!

The OCA's translations have been overall the best, but this always stuck out as a colossal blunder.

 

[Subdeacon Michael]

M -- Forgive me, and allow me to make amends!

"Might anyone be aware of anything in particular which the editors of the St. Tikhon's Press 2010 Divine Liturgy book may have changed (for the better) from the 1984 edition?  Knowledgeable reviews thus far have leaned towards the positive, but I have yet to hear anything specific cited regarding said reprinting.  Were anyone to put forward any pertinent information, I would be most appreciative."

Most excellent!  All is forgiven.  

I hope you'll pardon my comment above.  I have a number of friends and internet acquaintances from your side of the Atlantic, almost all of whom seem to be plagued with a fascination, or quite possibly an obsession, with words and their use not dissimilar to my own.  The differences between American and British conventions frequently become apparent during the course of conversation and usually become a talking point, largely because we don't have lives.  While other people are discussing faith, money, and politics, we talk about conjugations, declensions, and various linguistic peculiarities.  It really is quite a sad state of affairs.

For the sake of clarifying what caught my eye above, gotten always sounds incredibly archaic to English ears: I don't think we have used it for at least two hundred years.  It's the sort of word one might expect to find in 18th-century hardbacks in a library, while I believe that it is still commonly used in North America.  The other thing, of course, was the American convention of spelling enquire with i.

In ICXC,
M

 

[FatherHLL]

Anybody know of anything that's gotten fixed in the STS 2010 edition?  I've heard positive general reviews from folks in the know, but nothing specific.  Inquiring minds...

I hope they fixed the ghastly "The time has come to begin the service."

Is that how it rendered "It is time for the Lord to act"?  :-[
That's worse than the americanisms in the OP, (pace, DavidBryan), that troubled my delicate English sensibilities.  ;D :angel:
M

  ialmisry -- I glanced at a copy this morning; indeed, it now reads, "It is time for the Lord to act."

GLORY TO GOD!  The OCA's translations have been overall the best, but this always stuck out as a colossal blunder.

I agree.  I noticed STS bookstore has them on sale online.  Might be worth picking up a new copy. 

 

[Subdeacon Michael]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

Thank you.

M

 

[Iconodule]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

This is standard in the STS translations, unfortunately, including their DL. I haven't seen the new translation but I doubt they've changed this. It's a stupid practiced borrowed from the RSV.

In my opinion, the current ROCOR translations are superior. For contemporary English, I think the Ukrainian or ACROD translations are fine.

 

[Subdeacon Michael]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

This is standard in the STS translations, unfortunately, including their DL. I haven't seen the new translation but I doubt they've changed this. It's a stupid practiced borrowed from the RSV.

Thank you, Iconodule.  That's disappointing.

In my opinion, the current ROCOR translations are superior.

Well, they're passable, if you're referring to the Jordanville texts.  Personally, I much prefer the style of Holy Transfiguraton Monastery.  My parish started as a satellite mission of the Brookwood monastery, whose superior had come from HTM and based the Brookwood texts on those of HTM, so we were greatly influenced by that and still are today.  The use of those who instead of always them that, rendering philanthropos as Friend of man rather than Lover of mankind, the imaginative all-holy, immaculate, exceedingly blessed, and glorious Lady instead of the tediously boring most holy, most pure, most blessed, most glorious Lady - these are all plus points for Brookwood, inflenced by HTM.  The only problem is that they follow the Greek use.  However, if you know what you're doing this is not insurmountable.

M

 

[Hermogenes]

Now if only we could finally get rid of the HTM Psalter...

 

[Hermogenes]

Well, they're passable, if you're referring to the Jordanville texts.  Personally, I much prefer the style of Holy Transfiguraton Monastery. 

YOU'RE KIDDING!!! I find their Psalter almost unreadable. Their backward syntax and weird translations ("mocking loins," anyone?) trip me up nearly every time I try to chant it. Much, MUCH prefer Holy Myrrhbearers for the Psalter, and almost anyone else for the rest. It's a great pity, because from a manufacturing viewpoint (full disclosure: 25 years in publishing), the books themselves are truly beautiful.

 

[arimethea]

Well, they're passable, if you're referring to the Jordanville texts.  Personally, I much prefer the style of Holy Transfiguraton Monastery. 

YOU'RE KIDDING!!! I find their Psalter almost unreadable. Their backward syntax and weird translations ("mocking loins," anyone?) trip me up nearly every time I try to chant it. Much, MUCH prefer Holy Myrrhbearers for the Psalter, and almost anyone else for the rest. It's a great pity, because from a manufacturing viewpoint (full disclosure: 25 years in publishing), the books themselves are truly beautiful.

You might be surprised that there are many people out there who prefer the HTM translations to anything else out there in the English language. Not only do they capture the Greek in translation but, they also retain the poetic nature when possible.

 

[Orthodox11]

You might be surprised that there are many people out there who prefer the HTM translations to anything else out there in the English language. Not only do they capture the Greek in translation but, they also retain the poetic nature when possible.

Not to mention that they do not simply produce translations, but liturgical texts, written and presented in a way that allows them to be sung according to the traditional Byzantine melodies.

 

[podkarpatska]

You might be surprised that there are many people out there who prefer the HTM translations to anything else out there in the English language. Not only do they capture the Greek in translation but, they also retain the poetic nature when possible.

Not to mention that they do not simply produce translations, but liturgical texts, written and presented in a way that allows them to be sung according to the traditional Byzantine melodies.

But, the traditional Slavic chant melodies may not transfer as well in HTM; hence the OCA, UOA and ACROD have their 'own' translations, all of which to some part are tailored to their unique chant traditions.  It is a real challenge to come up with an English 'Trebnik' that will suit all sizes. Perhaps this problem has presented itself elsewhere in non-majority Orthodox countries with different languages such as Germany or France. Anyone have insight on that point?

 

[Hermogenes]

Not to mention that they do not simply produce translations, but liturgical texts, written and presented in a way that allows them to be sung according to the traditional Byzantine melodies.

But, the traditional Slavic chant melodies may not transfer as well in HTM; hence the OCA, UOA and ACROD have their 'own' translations, all of which to some part are tailored to their unique chant traditions.  It is a real challenge to come up with an English 'Trebnik' that will suit all sizes. Perhaps this problem has presented itself elsewhere in non-majority Orthodox countries with different languages such as Germany or France. Anyone have insight on that point?

I think it's wonderful to have the various traditions maintained, and I understand the difference between parish and monastic, as well as the difference between Athonite and Slavic. My objection to the HTM books originally was that I found them awkward, with confusing language. Like the way a single line jumps between several verb tenses, where the original Hebrew does not. Or some of the outright comical renderings, like the mocking loins  I mentioned from Psalm 37/38--a Psalm whose tone and subject are anything but comical. But I've been using them for the past few days as a result of this discussion and am finding them much better than I had remembered.

fixed quotes

 

[Iconodule]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

This is standard in the STS translations, unfortunately, including their DL. I haven't seen the new translation but I doubt they've changed this. It's a stupid practiced borrowed from the RSV.

In my opinion, the current ROCOR translations are superior. For contemporary English, I think the Ukrainian or ACROD translations are fine.

For those interested, I looked at St. Tikhon's website and they say this about the new liturgy book:

Additionally, the revision brings these books in line with Revised Liturgical English (RLE), developed here at St Tikhon's Seminary and Monastery as a dignified English setting for the services that is both easy to understand yet not a concession to contemporary English as has been tried in earlier translations. RLE is used in all our publications of service books and prayer books from at least 2008 onward. For those linguistically inclined, this means that the language herein is consistent with our Apostol, our Morning and Evening prayer books, and the Great Book of Needs.

Since I don't have any of these latter books, I'm not sure exactly how the "Revised Liturgical English" is. Perhaps someone with one of these books can comment. Do they address the Theotokos and the saints as "thou" or "you"?

Also, those with the 2008 books can send it back for a 25% discount on the new book.

 

[Hermogenes]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

Thank you.

M

Frankly, I find it a disappointment. For me, the whole point was to have one book with St. John, St. Basil, and the Presanctified liturgies. But the Presanctified is still incomplete, i.e., it doesn't contain the complete text. I'd have been better off sticking with the 1967 Divine Liturgy book and the  $3.00 pamphlet version of the complete Presanctified (which does have the complete text).

 

[Iconodule]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

Thank you.

M

Frankly, I find it a disappointment. For me, the whole point was to have one book with St. John, St. Basil, and the Presanctified liturgies. But the Presanctified is still incomplete, i.e., it doesn't contain the complete text. I'd have been better off sticking with the 1967 Divine Liturgy book and the  $3.00 pamphlet version of the complete Presanctified (which does have the complete text).

What parts are missing from the Presanctified? Also, are the 1st and 2nd antiphons for St. John's the full version or the abridged ones? And how is the Theotokos addressed, as "thou" or "you"?

 

[Hermogenes]

I have been able to find it here and am considering parting with money for it.  However, is anybody with access to it able to let us know whether it follows the curious custom that I have noticed in some other STS publications, of using Thee, Thou &c. when addressing or referring to God but not otherwise?  If so, whatever its other merits, it will have to be a no.

Thank you.

M

Frankly, I find it a disappointment. For me, the whole point was to have one book with St. John, St. Basil, and the Presanctified liturgies. But the Presanctified is still incomplete, i.e., it doesn't contain the complete text. I'd have been better off sticking with the 1967 Divine Liturgy book and the  $3.00 pamphlet version of the complete Presanctified (which does have the complete text).

What parts are missing from the Presanctified? Also, are the 1st and 2nd antiphons for St. John's the full version or the abridged ones? And how is the Theotokos addressed, as "thou" or "you"?

We update all the second-person pronouns in our parish, but it looks like Thees and Thous throughout. Antiphons for St. John appear to be the full version, but the antiphons are missing from the Presanctified, which is a big hole. We sing these antiphonally, so it's unhelpful to have to have at least a separate Psalter along with the prayer book. The opening Psalm is missing, too, why I can't imagine; and if I had been editing it I would have wanted to include the Typika at least. My hope was that I wouldn't have to have three or four separate books, but I guess that just seems so normal nobody thinks of doing it differently. And I never understand why St. Tikhon's Press never puts marker ribbons in its books. Except for the old liturgy book in 8vo format, I can't think of any of their stuff that has them.

As I say, as far as the Presanctified Liturgy goes (IMHO), the little pocket version published by St. Vlad's for about $3.00 is more useful.

 

[Iconodule]

I can see why not including the antiphons for the pre-sanctified is annoying. All the same, I saw the book at my parish bookstore and it looks to me like a vast improvement over the previous editions. You do get all 3 liturgies in the same volume. I'm glad they've included the complete psalms for St. John's liturgy- I think those should be sung more often in their entirety. Also, we have proper liturgical English again- not the silly RSV practice of addressing everyone but God as "you."

 

[Hermogenes]

I can see why not including the antiphons for the pre-sanctified is annoying. All the same, I saw the book at my parish bookstore and it looks to me like a vast improvement over the previous editions. You do get all 3 liturgies in the same volume. I'm glad they've included the complete psalms for St. John's liturgy- I think those should be sung more often in their entirety. Also, we have proper liturgical English again- not the silly RSV practice of addressing everyone but God as "you."

The priests complain that it's too big to fit in their pockets and has no market ribbons.

I look at the books the Catholics publish and can't help feeling we can do better than this. If this were one of theirs, it would have everything in it, be leather-bound, and have four or five market ribbons. And it wouldn't cost any more. If you get a chance sometime, take a look at the 1962 Roman Missal. Beautiful book, and costs about $30. I'd love our books to be of similar quality.

 

[Iconodule]

I think the problem is that our services are longer and more complex and have much more variable material than the Roman rite- our equivalent of the missal would not be a handy volume but something very large and imposing.

 

[Hermogenes]

I think the problem is that our services are longer and more complex and have much more variable material than the Roman rite- our equivalent of the missal would not be a handy volume but something very large and imposing.

Yes, it would be a project more of the magnitude of the Liturgia Horarum (4 vols.), but I, for one, would snap up something like that in a second. Not so much a missal as something that would allow me to recite all the hours, including Matins, Vespers, and Compline without having to go back and forth between books. The Roman Breviary is four volumes, the largest of which is about 2,200 pages, and each one contains all the texts necessary for the part of the calendar they cover. They include both feasts and saints. Our services are more complicated, I grant you, and probably some things would have to be left out. But you can get a lot of stuff into 2,200 pages, and these books are still very portable. It would be a large effort and would require a discerning hand, but I think it would be a great gift to the church.

 

[Pedro]

The priests complain that it's too big to fit in their pockets and has no market ribbons.

Fits in my cassock pocket just fine.  As for marker ribbons, well, nothing a trip to the crafts store and a hot glue gun (or even Elmer's glue) couldn't fix.

I look at the books the Catholics publish and can't help feeling we can do better than this. If this were one of theirs, it would have everything in it, be leather-bound, and have four or five market ribbons. And it wouldn't cost any more. If you get a chance sometime, take a look at the 1962 Roman Missal. Beautiful book, and costs about $30. I'd love our books to be of similar quality.

Would be nice, though isn't the '67 DL book similarly leather-bound?  Are Roman Missals nowadays that nicely done?

 

[Hermogenes]

The priests complain that it's too big to fit in their pockets and has no market ribbons.

Fits in my cassock pocket just fine.  As for marker ribbons, well, nothing a trip to the crafts store and a hot glue gun (or even Elmer's glue) couldn't fix.

I look at the books the Catholics publish and can't help feeling we can do better than this. If this were one of theirs, it would have everything in it, be leather-bound, and have four or five market ribbons. And it wouldn't cost any more. If you get a chance sometime, take a look at the 1962 Roman Missal. Beautiful book, and costs about $30. I'd love our books to be of similar quality.

Would be nice, though isn't the '67 DL book similarly leather-bound?  Are Roman Missals nowadays that nicely done?

The artwork isn't as nice, usually, but you can get well-bound books in leather. The old books, like the ones put out by Benzinger, had beautiful engravings.

My DL is a simple hard-bound book with two ribbons, but it may have been available in leather, I don't know. The original 84 edition of the STS book did come with marker ribbons. It's a complaint I have about our books as a whole. I know it adds to the expense of manufacturing, but it makes the books easier to use. It should be standard. I see priests and deacons using books with all these little post-it tabs, which is a good solution, but shouldn't have been necessary. The 62 missal alluded to earlier has six silk ribbons and costs less than $30. I think it's just another one of our bad habits, like not carefully proofreading before we print things.

 

[Fr. George]

The 62 missal alluded to earlier has six silk ribbons and costs less than $30. I think it's just another one of our bad habits, like not carefully proofreading before we print things.

You've hit on two of my top "pet peeves" about our Orthodox printings: not enough marker ribbons, and poor proofreading.  I think we are guilty of a great injustice when we mistreat our beautiful liturgical texts by not proofreading the manuscripts well enough before publication.

 

[Hermogenes]

The 62 missal alluded to earlier has six silk ribbons and costs less than $30. I think it's just another one of our bad habits, like not carefully proofreading before we print things.

You've hit on two of my top "pet peeves" about our Orthodox printings: not enough marker ribbons, and poor proofreading.  I think we are guilty of a great injustice when we mistreat our beautiful liturgical texts by not proofreading the manuscripts well enough before publication.

I totally agree, and nobody seems to be immune. Some texts look as if no one took a look at the galleys at all. Everyone complains about it, and yet...

 

[Schultz]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

 

[nstanosheck]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

Flipping the same few pages every day on so-called "Bible Paper" causes quick tears. Thicker paper means greater durability so that the book lasts until you have it all memorized.

 

[Fr. George]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

I, for one, thought that you would have posted at least once by now about the flagrant misuse of the semicolon in most Orthodox prayer books.  I came across it again last night in the Papadeas Holy Week book (we celebrated Holy Unction last night), and cringed. ;D

 

[Fr. George]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

Flipping the same few pages every day on so-called "Bible Paper" causes quick tears. Thicker paper means greater durability so that the book lasts until you have it all memorized.

Memorization can be problematic, especially in the divine services.  If it leads us to stop using the book, then it becomes another avenue for temptation.  There are few people I have encountered in the modern era (when memorization is not so nearly prized as it was generations ago) who can competently memorize texts and then not slip up at all when the time comes to recite them.

 

[Schultz]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

Flipping the same few pages every day on so-called "Bible Paper" causes quick tears. Thicker paper means greater durability so that the book lasts until you have it all memorized.

I have my grandfather's (Catholic) Benziger Bros. Lasance "Book of Prayer" that is at least 70 years old (it's at home so I can't give you the date when he received it, which is inscribed inside the cover).  It is obviously well used and well thumbed but the only tearing it has experienced in the past 70+ years is in the binding.  The only damage to the pages is that much of the gilding has worn off on the sides of the page; the top and bottom is still very much intact.  If you take care of it, such a book will last at least two lifetimes.

The simple fact is that the Eastern Orthodox prayer book industry is sub-par in both materials and presentation.  The Lancelot Andrewes Press (Western Orthodox) materials I've collected in the past few years is, materially, head and shoulders above everything I've seen from the likes of St. Vlad's, St. Tikhon's, Jordanville, and Conciliar Press, so at least one company selling to Orthodox Christians gets it.  

However, if one accepts that constant use of "Bible paper" causes tears, one could print the Morning/Evening prayers on thicker paper and put it in the middle of the prayerbook much like the way the Canon of the Mass is on thicker paper and in the center of the pre-V2 missals.

 

[Iconodule]

Eh. I hate "bible paper".

 

[Fr. George]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

Flipping the same few pages every day on so-called "Bible Paper" causes quick tears. 

While this has been my experience more than once, I still marvel that there are folks who've had their bibles (and used them daily) for 40+ years, some of them using hand-me-down bibles, who've had little to no tearing in their books.

 

[Hermogenes]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

Yes. If we could use onion skin, we could probably actually put together one of my most cherished dreams: a multi-volume work, each volume about the size of a volume of the Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, and including all the material necessary for Matins and Vespers (and the hours) throughout the whole year. It's doable, it just needs the support of some of the people at the top. It'd be about four volumes, each volume between 1,500 and 2,000 pages. Regular stock obviously won't do for that...

 

[Hermogenes]

One thing I find perplexing is the apparent phobia of using "Bible paper" for Orthodox prayer books.  Every Orthodox prayer book I've ever owned has been on substantial paper which, of course, make the thing bulkier than it needs to be.

Flipping the same few pages every day on so-called "Bible Paper" causes quick tears. Thicker paper means greater durability so that the book lasts until you have it all memorized.

I have my grandfather's (Catholic) Benziger Bros. Lasance "Book of Prayer" that is at least 70 years old (it's at home so I can't give you the date when he received it, which is inscribed inside the cover).  It is obviously well used and well thumbed but the only tearing it has experienced in the past 70+ years is in the binding.  The only damage to the pages is that much of the gilding has worn off on the sides of the page; the top and bottom is still very much intact.  If you take care of it, such a book will last at least two lifetimes.

The simple fact is that the Eastern Orthodox prayer book industry is sub-par in both materials and presentation.  The Lancelot Andrewes Press (Western Orthodox) materials I've collected in the past few years is, materially, head and shoulders above everything I've seen from the likes of St. Vlad's, St. Tikhon's, Jordanville, and Conciliar Press, so at least one company selling to Orthodox Christians gets it.  

However, if one accepts that constant use of "Bible paper" causes tears, one could print the Morning/Evening prayers on thicker paper and put it in the middle of the prayerbook much like the way the Canon of the Mass is on thicker paper and in the center of the pre-V2 missals.

New Skete makes very good books, if you can manage to live with some of their rather idiosyncratic language and approach to liturgy. But a 500-page book of theirs is as big as a 2,200-page missal using the thinner paper. If we're all happy spending thousands of dollars and having dozens of books in order to do a simple round of matins, hours, vespers, etc., then fine. We're golden. If we want more convenient books, we have to use thinner paper. And not all Bible paper is the same. Some is much more user friendly, depending on the processing. Take a look at a new set of the Liturgy of the Hours and see what you think. Most decent-size Catholic book stores have at least one set. I think it's a pretty good bunch of books, from a manufacturing perspective. (Well, I wish the ribbons were sewn in, instead of inserted...but the rest is very well done.)

As far as tearing, I used the same breviary for 10 years without tearing a single page. So I guess it depends on how rough one is on one's books generally.