A few comments

First off, I adore a bad book review. They're so much fun to read!

Second of all, I find that bad spelling thoroughly hurts my eyes. I spell things wrong myself (alas, I have even found the occasional their/they're or who's/whose error in my own prose) and I have friends who are dreadful spellers, but even when I see somebody whose writing is intelligent and articulate misspelling something that is extremely uncommon, and who knows that he is not certain and puts a little (sp?) afterwards, I still grit my teeth. The way to get around this pain, however, is to write in Middle English! For that reason I like to look at chaucerhathblog, where if anything I object to too much regularity of spelling. For example, Mr. Chaucer uses y instead of i for any two-syllable word featuring modern i, and he always uses ich instead of I or Y or ic or yh or any other variant that I've seen in my Medieval English literature class. But the fact remains that bad spelling doesn't bother me there, and I can let my grammar sensitivities relax a bit, until people start misusing "thou" and "thee" in the comments. (Although even Mr. Chaucer seems to overuse "doth" a bit, but that's slightly more stylistic. I can pretend to myself that he's simply super-emphasizing every third-person declarative statement.)

Thirdly, I am amused and horrified at the reports of the emergence of L337 speak in real life (or rl if you like). One such report described a Scottish girl handing in an essay about her summer vacation written entirely in these shortcuts, and the funny thing is the excessively formalized rendition that the news source provided of the report into standard English. "its gr8" is rendered as "it's a great place," and "9/11" becomes "the terrorism attack on September 11." A similar sort of rendition is what I find in the footnotes of my Medieval English lit reading assignment. For a while I thought that I was missing loads of stuff when I read the lines that the editors deemed complicated enough, even with the glosses given already, to provide a modern translation. Now I realize that the editors were just having fun. Observe lines 35-36 in Passus 5 of The Vision of Piers Plowman

"Late no wynnyng [gloss: profit] forwanye [gloss: weaken] hem while thei be yonge/Ne for no poustee of pestilence plese hem noght out of reson [gloss: to excess [because I couldn't have figured that out myself]]."

becomes

"Do not let your prosperity cause a weakening (of their moral character) during their childhood, and do not (to make up) for (the hardship and suffering caused by) the plague, pander excessively to their every wish."

Seriously, do they think I couldn't have figured out "while thei be yonge" means "during their childhood"? For that matter, doesn't it simply mean "while they are young"? Likewise, has the word "please" changed significantly besides spelling in the last few centuries? And if it has lost some intensity, doesn't adding the modifier "excessively" to the phrase "pander to their every wish" seem a bit redundant? Anyway, the words "out of reson" in the original suggest to me that "plese" didn't at the time carry a connotation of excess to it, which means that saying it means "pander to their every wish" is not that good of a translation in the first place. In my big ol' collection-o'-all-medieval-stuff-ever book, the editor is sort of a dope (he says that "The Tale of Florent" isn't humorous, for example, when in fact it's got some pretty funny stuff going on, and he states that "The Pearl" is about the transition from the doledrums of "the everlasting nay" into the glories of "the everlasting yea", which it's emphatically not), but at least he gets the glosses right. This guy, A. V. C. Schmidt, has simply provided a nice transcription into text of the original manuscript, and not much more.