The New Oxford American Dictionary

I simply come across far too many words that are just not in this dictionary. Also, a significant problem with the Kindle edition: if a word has more than one entry, only the first entry is shown or accessible. Very disappointing.

This dictionary is a Pop dictionary, and is not really appropriate for scholarly reference or for people looking for more detailed information. It's fine for general definitions and etymology, but really poor for proper names.

Each proper name entry is the same length (about three sentences), regardless of who the person is. Thus Tom Cruise gets nearly as much space as Abraham Lincoln, and the entries for Stephen King and Martin Luther King are the same length. Important historical figures like Jan Hus--the Bohemian revolutionary whose religious ideas predated the Reformation--are nowhere to be found, but if you're looking for Julia Roberts, no problem.

The editorical decisions on the entries for nations are equally bizarre. For instance, the entry on the United States is only slightly longer than the one for Tunisia. No offense to Tunisians, but this seems like an absurd attempt to be even-handed and to not make value judgements about the importance of one place over another. The nation entries also don't provide any history, demographics, or topography--really they don't provide much of anything beyond a generic description that tells you what continent you're on.

This is not a dictionary for people who like details. No definition is more than 2-3 sentences, regardless of how important it is. The editors also don't make any decisions about what is important. Why does Bach get the same treatment as Scriabin? I seriously question the motives of Oxford University Press. It seems like an intentionally dumbed-down edition meant to appeal to Americans--something we should all take offense at.

It's a great reference book/dictionary but didn't realized it was too big. Anyway, it's for my husband's office so no big deal, I might get a smaller one for my son in school if I they have it online.

CONSIDERATION: go to the Library or bookstore and compare before buying.

I was so eager to get a copy of the NOAD, based on one of the reviews in particular and on the generally excellent reviews, that I spent extra money to speed delivery (for a dictionary!).

I'm sadly disappointed.

I had hoped NOAD would top my old American Heritage Dictionary (AHD). I have loved the AHD for years but hoped to get even more etymologies from the NOAD. That was my main interest - to have the ultimate source for word origins in a reasonable tome, that is in a single manageable volume.

The NOAD has several flaws, by my lights:

1 - the etymologies are way too HARD to locate! you have to search carefully to find these. WHY??? They are too subtly denoted. ... the AHD etymologies are immediately locatable and pop out nicely without contrasting or competing with the main text. Also, judging from a few I've searched for, the AHD does a better job of summarizing the etymologies, making them more succinct and readable.

2 - unexpectedly, I find the too-white paper of the NOAD to be STARK (as in eye-straining) and too contrasty with the cheap-looking print. The over-white paper makes the graphics look cheaper. Also, I don't like the pictures being interspersed with the body of the dictionary; they break up the text in a cluttery way. ... the AHD has a pleasing off-white paper and the text is totally readable and comfortable on the eyes and the numerous graphics are neatly off to the side in a half column on each page.

I was surprised that the NOAD is not an inviting book to look at, as is the AHD. It's a subtle difference, but I definitely prefer the AHD (old one I have, anyway).

Perhaps I should have trusted my reaction to the NOAD cover: I was put off by the cold blue cover (red-white-blue motif, mostly blue) design. I had a suspicion that it foretold problems. I was right. But that's just my taste, maybe. I think not; but, I know tastes do vary.

I have only perused the NOAD for a half hour. Maybe I'll reassess my views later. But I doubt it.

If I put the AHD next to the NOAD, I am slightly repulsed by the NOAD and definitely attracted to the AHD, even with the cover removed. The NOAD coverless book is almost black.

A side note: the NOAD has no word roots in the back. Maybe that is way too esoteric for most users. But I kind of liked having those ancient roots available despite almost never using them. They gave the AHD an aura of depth and seriousness which, combined with the inviting and comfortably presented definitions made for a satisfying whole. Actually, they could have left the root section out; but somehow it was nice to know it was there just to remind me that language is sooooo ancient. The NOAD not having such diminishes it in my opinion.

My son wanted a dictionary so his grandmother wanted to get him one he would always have. This fits the bill nicely.