Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #150219 > unrolled thread

seveneves

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-23 17:40 +0000
    Re: seveneves mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-08-23 14:12 -0700
    Re: seveneves Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-08-24 01:44 -0300
      Re: seveneves Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-08-24 10:35 +0200
        Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-24 09:26 +0000
          Re: seveneves Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-08-24 14:11 +0100
            Re: seveneves jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-25 12:42 +0000
              Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-08-26 11:11 +0100
                Re: seveneves jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-26 12:03 +0000
                  Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-08-27 10:09 +0100
                    Re: seveneves jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-27 13:40 +0000
                      Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-08-28 11:52 +0100
                        Re: seveneves jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-28 13:31 +0000
                          Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-03 10:25 +0100
                            Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-03 09:36 +0000
                              Re: seveneves mausg@mail.com - 2015-09-03 10:17 +0000
                                Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-03 13:04 +0000
                                Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-04 07:47 +0100
                                  Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-04 09:02 +0000
                                    Re: seveneves Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-11 07:33 +0000
                              Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-09-04 07:45 +0100
                                Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-09-04 08:59 +0000
                        Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-28 14:23 +0000
          Re: seveneves Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-08-24 14:50 -0300
            Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:48 +0000
              Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-24 20:42 +0000
                Re: seveneves Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-08-25 02:17 -0300
                Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:54 +0000
        Re: seveneves scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-08-24 14:07 +0000
          Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:31 +0000
            Re: seveneves scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-08-24 19:54 +0000
        Re: seveneves JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 10:27 -0500
      Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-24 09:22 +0000
        Re: seveneves "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-08-25 16:22 -0500
          Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:52 +0000
            Re: seveneves Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-08-26 09:30 +0100
              Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-26 10:12 +0000
                Re: seveneves Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-08-26 12:42 +0100
                  Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-26 12:15 +0000
                  Re: seveneves lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-08-26 16:52 +0200
                  Re: seveneves jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-27 13:40 +0000
                    Re: seveneves "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 05:21 +1000
                Re: seveneves Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-26 13:59 +0100
                  Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-26 13:20 +0000
                    Re: seveneves Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-08-26 14:54 +0100
                      Re: seveneves Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-26 14:37 +0000
                  Re: seveneves Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 16:08 +0000
            Re: seveneves Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-08-26 07:10 -0700
              Re: seveneves Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-08-26 07:54 -0700
              Re: seveneves Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-08-26 08:10 -0700
                Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-26 17:15 +0000
                  Re: seveneves Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-08-26 11:57 -0700
                    Re: seveneves Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-08-26 12:25 -0700
              Re: seveneves Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-08-27 16:05 -0700
      Re: seveneves "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-08-25 16:18 -0500
        Re: seveneves Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-26 02:09 -0400
          Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-08-27 08:42 +0100
            Re: seveneves Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-08-27 09:18 +0000
              Re: seveneves simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2015-08-27 14:30 +0100
                Re: seveneves Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2015-08-27 23:39 -0300
                  Re: seveneves jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-08-28 13:31 +0000
                  Re: seveneves Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-28 11:45 -0400
                    Re: seveneves Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-08-28 12:15 -0400
                      Re: seveneves Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-28 13:09 -0400
            Re: seveneves Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-08-27 20:20 +0000
              Re: seveneves Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-08-28 20:41 -0700
                Re: seveneves Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-08-29 09:32 -0400
      Re: seveneves Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-08-26 16:26 +0000
    Re: seveneves Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-08-25 15:55 -0400

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#150219 — seveneves

Neal Stephenson's book "Seveneves" is serious stuff, best book I have
read for years. I find the logic a bit hard to follow sometimes 


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#150235

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 10:40:59 AM UTC-7, Greymaus wrote:
> Neal Stephenson's book "Seveneves" is serious stuff, best book I have
> read for years. I find the logic a bit hard to follow sometimes 
> 
> 
> -- 
> greymaus

Seveneves 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LZWV8JO 
is about the disintegration of the moon 
of Earth and what then results over 
thousands of years.

Singularity (Psyborg) 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F8F1FG0 
is by Yours Truly posting this info. 

Cheers, 

ATM/Mentifex
-- 
Major goal in life: Trigger a Technological Singularity; 
Minor goal: Overthrow the unelected government of China; 
Minor goal: Win a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; 
Minor goal: [X] Reunification of East and West Germany. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150258

Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:

> Neal Stephenson's book "Seveneves" is serious stuff, best book I have
> read for years. I find the logic a bit hard to follow sometimes 

I'm a *great* Stephenson fan.  Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle
(which I tend to think of as one stupendous opus) was/were, at time of
publication, the best book(s) I'd read in 50 years.  I've read the
whole four volumes 8 times. It's/They're still in my top ten, maybe
top five, of all time.  All his other books rate from "pretty good
yarn" to "really great book", have read them all more than once.

To my great dismay, Seveneves left me cold.  I'll grant that he came
up with a hitherto unthoughtof apocalypse but the apocalypse half was
just another, you know, apocalypse story.  The 5,000 years in the
future half just didn't cohere for me.  If you're really, really keen
on apocalypse and orbital mechanics, it might be, well, you know,
okay.  But that's by far the faintest praise I've ever had for
Stephenson.  Sorry to say.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150262

In article <87a8thl2hh.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
Mike Spencer  <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>
>> Neal Stephenson's book "Seveneves" is serious stuff, best book I have
>> read for years. I find the logic a bit hard to follow sometimes 
>
>I'm a *great* Stephenson fan.  Cryptonomicon and The Baroque Cycle
>(which I tend to think of as one stupendous opus) was/were, at time of
>publication, the best book(s) I'd read in 50 years.  I've read the
>whole four volumes 8 times. It's/They're still in my top ten, maybe
>top five, of all time.  All his other books rate from "pretty good
>yarn" to "really great book", have read them all more than once.
>
>To my great dismay, Seveneves left me cold.  I'll grant that he came
>up with a hitherto unthoughtof apocalypse but the apocalypse half was
>just another, you know, apocalypse story.  The 5,000 years in the
>future half just didn't cohere for me.  If you're really, really keen
>on apocalypse and orbital mechanics, it might be, well, you know,
>okay.  But that's by far the faintest praise I've ever had for
>Stephenson.  Sorry to say.

The best apocalypse novel is still "A canticle for Leibowitz", 
where you get to around chapter three before you realise that this
is around 500 years in the future, and the great fall of civilization
was not that of the Roman Empire, but of ours. Not ~700 AD, rather
~2500 AD.

A very different approach.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150271

On 2015-08-24, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <87a8thl2hh.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
> Mike Spencer  <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>>Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Neal Stephenson's book "Seveneves" is serious stuff, best book I have
>>> read for years. I find the logic a bit hard to follow sometimes 
>>
>
> The best apocalypse novel is still "A canticle for Leibowitz", 
> where you get to around chapter three before you realise that this
> is around 500 years in the future, and the great fall of civilization
> was not that of the Roman Empire, but of ours. Not ~700 AD, rather
> ~2500 AD.
>
> A very different approach.
>
> -- mrr
Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1], and there is a threat
of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
to a computer


[1] To me.

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150284

On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:

> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],

	Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.

> and there is a threat
> of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
> to a computer

	We can hope, sadly it's probably just publishing delays.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150362

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
>
>     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
>
>> and there is a threat
>> of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
>> to a computer
>
>     We can hope, sadly it's probably just publishing delays.
>
I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150464

On 25 Aug, in article
     <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
     "jmfbahciv" wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
> > Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
> >
> >     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
> >
> >> and there is a threat
> >> of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
> >> to a computer
> >
> >     We can hope, sadly it's probably just publishing delays.
> >
> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.

I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:

  Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
  an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
  a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
  mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
  to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
  I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
  not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
  author. I do all the writing!

http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150470

Simon Turner wrote:
> On 25 Aug, in article
>      <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> > On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
>> > Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
>> >
>> >     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
>> >
>> >> and there is a threat
>> >> of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
>> >> to a computer
>> >
>> >     We can hope, sadly it's probably just publishing delays.
>> >
>> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
>> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.
>
> I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
> Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
> wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:
>
>   Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
>   an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
>   a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
>   mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
>   to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
>   I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
>   not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
>   author. I do all the writing!
>
> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html
>

IIRC, the copyright was 2002.  he would have started to suffer from
mental breakdowns by then.  Do you really believe that his wife wasn't
involved in his work?

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150551

On 26 Aug, in article
     <PM00051E35A96B2744@aca41c8f.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
     "jmfbahciv" wrote:

> Simon Turner wrote:
> > On 25 Aug, in article
> >      <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
> >      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
> >
> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >> > On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
> >> > Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
> >> >
> >> >     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
> >> >
> >> >> and there is a threat
> >> >> of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
> >> >> to a computer
> >> >
> >> >     We can hope, sadly it's probably just publishing delays.
> >> >
> >> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
> >> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.
> >
> > I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
> > Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
> > wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:
> >
> >   Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
> >   an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
> >   a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
> >   mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
> >   to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
> >   I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
> >   not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
> >   author. I do all the writing!
> >
> > http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html
> >
> 
> IIRC, the copyright was 2002.

1999 [0].

> he would have started to suffer from mental breakdowns by then.

"Mental breakdowns"??  What on Earth are you on about?

His Alzheimer's was of a rare type called Posterior Cortical Atrophy,
which affects visual processing (and hence things that depend on it,
like reading, eye-hand coordination, visuo-spatial awareness etc.); his
cognitive ability was unimpaired, which is why he was able to continue
writing (using speech recognition and dictation towards the end because
he could no longer type).

The first symptoms reportedly started showing around 2004-5, and it was
initially misdiagnosed as a minor stroke that had affected his motor
skills.  The PCA was diagnosed in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_cortical_atrophy

> Do you really believe that his wife wasn't involved in his work?

"Involved in" as in co-authorship?  Absolutely.  Not least because he
said so himself: "I do all the writing!" (see above).

And note that, while the *copyright* was assigned to Terry and Lyn
Pratchett, the *authorship* is clearly established in a subsequent
paragraph (quoting from "The Fifth Elephant"):

  Copyright (C) Terry and Lyn Pratchett 1999
  Discworld(R) is a trademark registered by Terry Pratchett

  The right of Terry Pratchett to be identified as the author of this
  work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

If Lyn had been a co-author, as you claim, surely that would have been
"The rights of Terry and Lyn Pratchett to be identified as the authors
of this work..."?

Or are you trying to claim that all spouses/partners of successful
authors are really co-authors simply by virtue of their place in the
authors' lives?


[0] In my UK edition; it's possible, I suppose, that your US edition has
a later copyright date.  (I don't know if it's typical for book
copyrights to be "refreshed" when published in another country, although
a three-year UK-US publication delay seems rather long.)


Epilogue:

I know there are some people in this group who seem to make it their
business to contradict everything you say, which seems a shame.  I have
never been one of them; I don't post often, but you may note that some
of my posts over the years have been in support of you.

But when you come up with stuff like this -- initially a clear, and
understandable, misunderstanding -- and then refuse to accept a gentle
correction, going on to compound your initial misapprehension by making
thoroughly silly further claims, you really don't help your own cause.
8-(

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150572

Simon Turner wrote:
> On 26 Aug, in article
>      <PM00051E35A96B2744@aca41c8f.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>
>> Simon Turner wrote:
>> > On 25 Aug, in article
>> >      <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>> >      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> >> > On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
>> >> > Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
>> >> >
>> >> >     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
>> >> >
>> >> >> and there is a threat
>> >> >> of another Pratchett coming out. Did they transfer his intellagence
>> >> >> to a computer
>> >> >
>> >> >     We can hope, sadly it's probably just publishing delays.
>> >> >
>> >> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
>> >> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.
>> >
>> > I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
>> > Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
>> > wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:
>> >
>> >   Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
>> >   an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
>> >   a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
>> >   mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
>> >   to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
>> >   I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
>> >   not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
>> >   author. I do all the writing!
>> >
>> > http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html
>> >
>>
>> IIRC, the copyright was 2002.
>
> 1999 [0].
>
>> he would have started to suffer from mental breakdowns by then.
>
> "Mental breakdowns"??  What on Earth are you on about?
>
> His Alzheimer's was of a rare type called Posterior Cortical Atrophy,
> which affects visual processing (and hence things that depend on it,
> like reading, eye-hand coordination, visuo-spatial awareness etc.); his
> cognitive ability was unimpaired, which is why he was able to continue
> writing (using speech recognition and dictation towards the end because
> he could no longer type).

OK.  that wasn't the news item I had heard.

>
> The first symptoms reportedly started showing around 2004-5, and it was
> initially misdiagnosed as a minor stroke that had affected his motor
> skills.  The PCA was diagnosed in 2007.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_cortical_atrophy
>
>> Do you really believe that his wife wasn't involved in his work?
>
> "Involved in" as in co-authorship?  Absolutely.  Not least because he
> said so himself: "I do all the writing!" (see above).


Have you ever heard of feedback?  :-)


>
> And note that, while the *copyright* was assigned to Terry and Lyn
> Pratchett, the *authorship* is clearly established in a subsequent
> paragraph (quoting from "The Fifth Elephant"):
>
>   Copyright (C) Terry and Lyn Pratchett 1999
>   Discworld(R) is a trademark registered by Terry Pratchett
>
>   The right of Terry Pratchett to be identified as the author of this
>   work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
>   Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Your copyright is worded differently than the ones I read over here (USA).

>
> If Lyn had been a co-author, as you claim, surely that would have been
> "The rights of Terry and Lyn Pratchett to be identified as the authors
> of this work..."?

I didnt' intend to imply that she was the author.  She must know enough
about his work and style to be able to pick up unfinished work, finish
it, and publish post-mortem.

>
> Or are you trying to claim that all spouses/partners of successful
> authors are really co-authors simply by virtue of their place in the
> authors' lives?


See above.

>
>
> [0] In my UK edition; it's possible, I suppose, that your US edition has
> a later copyright date.  (I don't know if it's typical for book
> copyrights to be "refreshed" when published in another country, although
> a three-year UK-US publication delay seems rather long.)


Yes, that's strange.  Copyright pages have been puzzling me lately.
>
>
> Epilogue:
>
> I know there are some people in this group who seem to make it their
> business to contradict everything you say, which seems a shame.  I have
> never been one of them; I don't post often, but you may note that some
> of my posts over the years have been in support of you.
>
> But when you come up with stuff like this -- initially a clear, and
> understandable, misunderstanding -- and then refuse to accept a gentle
> correction, going on to compound your initial misapprehension by making
> thoroughly silly further claims, you really don't help your own cause.
> 8-(
>
The subject was a new publication by Pratchett.  I merely HYPOTHESIZED
that it might be something he had started and his wife finished.  Why
is that not possible?

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150641

On 27 Aug, in article
     <PM00051E4AE0E35123@aca20dba.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
     "jmfbahciv" wrote:

> Simon Turner wrote:
>> On 26 Aug, in article
>>      <PM00051E35A96B2744@aca41c8f.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>>> On 25 Aug, in article
>>>>      <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
>>>>>> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and there is a threat
>>>>>>> of another Pratchett coming out.

"The Shepherd's Crown" (described as "The Final Discworld Novel" on the
back cover) was released yesterday in the UK.

[To Greymaus] Incidentally, why a "threat"?  It's quite common for
novels completed before the author's death to be published posthumously;
Stieg Larsson's entire Millennium Trilogy ("The Girl with the Dragon
Tattoo" etc.) was published after his untimely death.  Or do you have a
dislike for Pratchett's writing, such that you regard the appearance of
more of it as a Bad Thing?

[...]

>>>>> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
>>>>> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
>>>> Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
>>>> wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:
>>>>
>>>>   Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
>>>>   an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
>>>>   a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
>>>>   mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
>>>>   to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
>>>>   I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
>>>>   not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
>>>>   author. I do all the writing!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, the copyright was 2002.
>>
>> 1999 [0].
>>
>>> he would have started to suffer from mental breakdowns by then.
>>
>> "Mental breakdowns"??  What on Earth are you on about?
>>
>> His Alzheimer's was of a rare type called Posterior Cortical Atrophy,
>> which affects visual processing (and hence things that depend on it,
>> like reading, eye-hand coordination, visuo-spatial awareness etc.); his
>> cognitive ability was unimpaired, which is why he was able to continue
>> writing (using speech recognition and dictation towards the end because
>> he could no longer type).
> 
> OK.  that wasn't the news item I had heard.

Fair enough; journalistic standards seem to be woefully poor everywhere,
especially so for "news" items.  PCA is not what most people think of
when they hear "Alzheimer's"; indeed there are those who resent PCA's
categorisation as a type of Alzheimer's for exactly that reason.

But it might have been worth a little research before jumping to such an
unwarranted conclusion.

>>> Do you really believe that his wife wasn't involved in his work?
>>
>> "Involved in" as in co-authorship?  Absolutely.  Not least because he
>> said so himself: "I do all the writing!" (see above).
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of feedback?  :-)

Of course; it's that sound you get in movies when someone is just about
to speak into a microphone, isn't it? 8-)

But feedback is a far cry from co-authorship, which was your claim.

My wife and I often discuss our respective software projects, including
brainstorming problems etc., but I doubt either of us would find it easy
if suddenly expected to complete the other's code.  8-)

>> And note that, while the *copyright* was assigned to Terry and Lyn
>> Pratchett, the *authorship* is clearly established in a subsequent
>> paragraph (quoting from "The Fifth Elephant"):
>>
>>   Copyright (C) Terry and Lyn Pratchett 1999
>>   Discworld(R) is a trademark registered by Terry Pratchett
>>
>>   The right of Terry Pratchett to be identified as the author of this
>>   work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
>>   Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
> 
> Your copyright is worded differently than the ones I read over here (USA).

That doesn't surprise me; references to a UK Act of Parliament would
probably be met with a degree of confusion over there!  I would have
expected a similar assertion of authorship in the US version; but
perhaps you don't have an applicable law on which to hang such a thing.

>> If Lyn had been a co-author, as you claim, surely that would have been
>> "The rights of Terry and Lyn Pratchett to be identified as the authors
>> of this work..."?
> 
> I didnt' intend to imply that she was the author.

You explicitly claimed (see above) that "his wife was a co-author" of
The Fifth Elephant.  It was that erroneous claim that I was correcting.

> She must know enough about his work and style to be able to pick up
> unfinished work, finish it, and publish post-mortem.

Possibly, although I suspect his long-time assistant Rob Wilkins (a)
knew infinitely more about his work and writing style, and (b) would
have been the one to do any final tidying etc.

But given that the book is out now, and Sir Terry died less than six
months ago, it's probably all his own work; reportedly it was completed
in mid-2014.

Interestingly, he said that he would be happy for his daughter Rhianna
(who, unlike his wife Lyn, is a writer) to continue the Discworld
series; but she has said she will not do so.

>> [0] In my UK edition; it's possible, I suppose, that your US edition has
>> a later copyright date.  (I don't know if it's typical for book
>> copyrights to be "refreshed" when published in another country, although
>> a three-year UK-US publication delay seems rather long.)
> 
> 
> Yes, that's strange.  Copyright pages have been puzzling me lately.

I find many aspects of copyright very puzzling.

>> But when you come up with stuff like this -- initially a clear, and
>> understandable, misunderstanding -- and then refuse to accept a gentle
>> correction, going on to compound your initial misapprehension by making
>> thoroughly silly further claims, you really don't help your own cause.
>> 8-(
>>
> The subject was a new publication by Pratchett.  I merely HYPOTHESIZED
> that it might be something he had started and his wife finished.  Why
> is that not possible?

Such a hypothesis is not unreasonable at first sight; but you
specifically claimed that "his wife was a co-author" (not just someone
who provided feedback etc.) of a book published 16 years ago, and when I
gently corrected you on that misunderstanding, you could have just said
"Oh - fair enough, I'd misunderstood the copyright thing. But maybe
she's involved with the new book anyway?", which would have been fine.

But you didn't do that; instead you went on the offensive, ignoring the
correction and attempting to justify your stance by stating (not
hypothesising, but baldly stating as apparent fact) that "he would have
started to suffer from mental breakdowns" by 2002, which had no factual
basis and was utterly wrong in many different ways.

This is something you frequently seem to do: jump to conclusions about
things you don't actually know all that much about, without doing any
research to check your underlying assumptions, then state those
hypotheses as though they were facts.  It plays right into the hands of
your detractors, and is something you should really try to stop doing.
IMHO.

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#150647

Simon Turner wrote:
> On 27 Aug, in article
>      <PM00051E4AE0E35123@aca20dba.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>
>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>> On 26 Aug, in article
>>>      <PM00051E35A96B2744@aca41c8f.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>>>> On 25 Aug, in article
>>>>>      <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>>>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
>>>>>>> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and there is a threat
>>>>>>>> of another Pratchett coming out.
>
> "The Shepherd's Crown" (described as "The Final Discworld Novel" on the
> back cover) was released yesterday in the UK.

Kewl.

>
> [To Greymaus] Incidentally, why a "threat"?  It's quite common for
> novels completed before the author's death to be published posthumously;
> Stieg Larsson's entire Millennium Trilogy ("The Girl with the Dragon
> Tattoo" etc.) was published after his untimely death.  Or do you have a
> dislike for Pratchett's writing, such that you regard the appearance of
> more of it as a Bad Thing?
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
>>>>>> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
>>>>> Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
>>>>> wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
>>>>>   an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
>>>>>   a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
>>>>>   mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
>>>>>   to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
>>>>>   I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
>>>>>   not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
>>>>>   author. I do all the writing!
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, the copyright was 2002.
>>>
>>> 1999 [0].
>>>
>>>> he would have started to suffer from mental breakdowns by then.
>>>
>>> "Mental breakdowns"??  What on Earth are you on about?
>>>
>>> His Alzheimer's was of a rare type called Posterior Cortical Atrophy,
>>> which affects visual processing (and hence things that depend on it,
>>> like reading, eye-hand coordination, visuo-spatial awareness etc.); his
>>> cognitive ability was unimpaired, which is why he was able to continue
>>> writing (using speech recognition and dictation towards the end because
>>> he could no longer type).
>>
>> OK.  that wasn't the news item I had heard.
>
> Fair enough; journalistic standards seem to be woefully poor everywhere,
> especially so for "news" items.  PCA is not what most people think of
> when they hear "Alzheimer's"; indeed there are those who resent PCA's
> categorisation as a type of Alzheimer's for exactly that reason.

I don't think I've ever heard of it.
>
> But it might have been worth a little research before jumping to such an
> unwarranted conclusion.
>
>>>> Do you really believe that his wife wasn't involved in his work?
>>>
>>> "Involved in" as in co-authorship?  Absolutely.  Not least because he
>>> said so himself: "I do all the writing!" (see above).
>>
>>
>> Have you ever heard of feedback?  :-)
>
> Of course; it's that sound you get in movies when someone is just about
> to speak into a microphone, isn't it? 8-)

<grin>
>
> But feedback is a far cry from co-authorship, which was your claim.
>
> My wife and I often discuss our respective software projects, including
> brainstorming problems etc., but I doubt either of us would find it easy
> if suddenly expected to complete the other's code.  8-)

If you or your wife had picked the other's code, the finishing would
be done in the style of the original author.  Right?

>
>>> And note that, while the *copyright* was assigned to Terry and Lyn
>>> Pratchett, the *authorship* is clearly established in a subsequent
>>> paragraph (quoting from "The Fifth Elephant"):
>>>
>>>   Copyright (C) Terry and Lyn Pratchett 1999
>>>   Discworld(R) is a trademark registered by Terry Pratchett
>>>
>>>   The right of Terry Pratchett to be identified as the author of this
>>>   work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
>>>   Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
>>
>> Your copyright is worded differently than the ones I read over here (USA).
>
> That doesn't surprise me; references to a UK Act of Parliament would
> probably be met with a degree of confusion over there!  I would have
> expected a similar assertion of authorship in the US version; but
> perhaps you don't have an applicable law on which to hang such a thing.

Copyright pages have been changing over the last (est.) 10 years.  Some
lines of the copyright are a mystery to me.

>
>>> If Lyn had been a co-author, as you claim, surely that would have been
>>> "The rights of Terry and Lyn Pratchett to be identified as the authors
>>> of this work..."?
>>
>> I didnt' intend to imply that she was the author.
>
> You explicitly claimed (see above) that "his wife was a co-author" of
> The Fifth Elephant.  It was that erroneous claim that I was correcting.

Oh, now I understand the objection.  Yes, I had assumed that there
was co-authorship because of the copyright.
>
>> She must know enough about his work and style to be able to pick up
>> unfinished work, finish it, and publish post-mortem.
>
> Possibly, although I suspect his long-time assistant Rob Wilkins (a)
> knew infinitely more about his work and writing style, and (b) would
> have been the one to do any final tidying etc.

Or they both did it.  Didn't one of the later publications have a second
author listed on the cover?  Perhaps the Long Earth series?

>
> But given that the book is out now, and Sir Terry died less than six
> months ago, it's probably all his own work; reportedly it was completed
> in mid-2014.
>
> Interestingly, he said that he would be happy for his daughter Rhianna
> (who, unlike his wife Lyn, is a writer) to continue the Discworld
> series; but she has said she will not do so.

I read about that.  Maybe she will change her mind in a couple of decades.
She may not want to because of the style of humor her father had.  People
would be disappointed (similar to the disappointment of the book which just
came out about Atticus Finch who was a character in _To Kill A Mockingbird_).

I'm reading _Only Human_ by Tom Holt; the author has almost a similar
type of humor as Pratchett.

>
>>> [0] In my UK edition; it's possible, I suppose, that your US edition has
>>> a later copyright date.  (I don't know if it's typical for book
>>> copyrights to be "refreshed" when published in another country, although
>>> a three-year UK-US publication delay seems rather long.)
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's strange.  Copyright pages have been puzzling me lately.
>
> I find many aspects of copyright very puzzling.

I spent an awful lot of work time and energy doing copyrights of software.
I used to know what everything meant.  Now there's new comments, strange
formats and very stranges encoding.  I've notice that the blank pages
which used to offset the copyright page are gone.
>
>>> But when you come up with stuff like this -- initially a clear, and
>>> understandable, misunderstanding -- and then refuse to accept a gentle
>>> correction, going on to compound your initial misapprehension by making
>>> thoroughly silly further claims, you really don't help your own cause.
>>> 8-(
>>>
>> The subject was a new publication by Pratchett.  I merely HYPOTHESIZED
>> that it might be something he had started and his wife finished.  Why
>> is that not possible?
>
> Such a hypothesis is not unreasonable at first sight; but you
> specifically claimed that "his wife was a co-author" (not just someone
> who provided feedback etc.) of a book published 16 years ago, and when I
> gently corrected you on that misunderstanding, you could have just said
> "Oh - fair enough, I'd misunderstood the copyright thing. But maybe
> she's involved with the new book anyway?", which would have been fine.

I apologize for flying off.  I've been too used to having each and every
one of my posts attacked.  It's almost become a habit to drop into
defense mode.

>
> But you didn't do that; instead you went on the offensive, ignoring the
> correction and attempting to justify your stance by stating (not
> hypothesising, but baldly stating as apparent fact) that "he would have
> started to suffer from mental breakdowns" by 2002, which had no factual
> basis and was utterly wrong in many different ways.
>
> This is something you frequently seem to do: jump to conclusions about
> things you don't actually know all that much about, without doing any
> research to check your underlying assumptions, then state those
> hypotheses as though they were facts.  It plays right into the hands of
> your detractors, and is something you should really try to stop doing.
> IMHO.
>

Well, I do know about leaving the kudos to the male even though a lot
of the real work was done by the female.  :-)  I'm not, in any way,
stating that's how the Pratchetts worked.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151002

On 28 Aug, in article
     <PM00051E5F3A9102EA@aca20de0.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
     "jmfbahciv" wrote:

> Simon Turner wrote:
>> On 27 Aug, in article
>>      <PM00051E4AE0E35123@aca20dba.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>>> On 26 Aug, in article
>>>>      <PM00051E35A96B2744@aca41c8f.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Simon Turner wrote:
>>>>>> On 25 Aug, in article
>>>>>>      <PM00051E2218DFCC8B@aca4161c.ipt.aol.com> See.above@aol.com
>>>>>>      "jmfbahciv" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 09:26:18 GMT
>>>>>>>> Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. William Gibsons last was disappointing[1],
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Agreed - he ran out of steam quite quickly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and there is a threat
>>>>>>>>> of another Pratchett coming out.
>>
>> "The Shepherd's Crown" (described as "The Final Discworld Novel" on the
>> back cover) was released yesterday in the UK.
> 
> Kewl.

[...]

>>>>>>> I just finished reading _the Fifth Elephant_.  His wife was
>>>>>>> a co-author.  Perhaps she's finishing up other scripts he started.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're reading too much into the fact that the copyright in all
>>>>>> Sir Terry's books (from the late 80s on) was in joint names with his
>>>>>> wife Lyn; she wasn't a co-author.  As he said himself:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Copyright does not necessarily have anything to do with authorship --
>>>>>>   an author can assign copyright wherever he or she likes. Lyn and I are
>>>>>>   a legal partnership, and so we hold copyright jointly (for various
>>>>>>   mildly beneficial reasons) in the same way that, if we ever bothered
>>>>>>   to form a limited company, that would hold the copyright. At random
>>>>>>   I've picked a few favourite books off the shelf, and can say that it's
>>>>>>   not unusual for copyright not to be held simply in the name of the
>>>>>>   author. I do all the writing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.lspace.org/books/apf/words-from-the-master.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, the copyright was 2002.
>>>>
>>>> 1999 [0].
>>>>
>>>>> he would have started to suffer from mental breakdowns by then.
>>>>
>>>> "Mental breakdowns"??  What on Earth are you on about?
>>>>
>>>> His Alzheimer's was of a rare type called Posterior Cortical Atrophy,
>>>> which affects visual processing (and hence things that depend on it,
>>>> like reading, eye-hand coordination, visuo-spatial awareness etc.); his
>>>> cognitive ability was unimpaired, which is why he was able to continue
>>>> writing (using speech recognition and dictation towards the end because
>>>> he could no longer type).
>>>
>>> OK.  that wasn't the news item I had heard.
>>
>> Fair enough; journalistic standards seem to be woefully poor everywhere,
>> especially so for "news" items.  PCA is not what most people think of
>> when they hear "Alzheimer's"; indeed there are those who resent PCA's
>> categorisation as a type of Alzheimer's for exactly that reason.
> 
> I don't think I've ever heard of it.

Neither had I until watching a documentary about him a few years ago;
his frustration at being unable to do previously-straightforward things
like tying a necktie was tangible.

[...]

>>>>> Do you really believe that his wife wasn't involved in his work?
>>>>
>>>> "Involved in" as in co-authorship?  Absolutely.  Not least because he
>>>> said so himself: "I do all the writing!" (see above).
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of feedback?  :-)
>>
>> Of course; it's that sound you get in movies when someone is just about
>> to speak into a microphone, isn't it? 8-)
> 
> <grin>
>>
>> But feedback is a far cry from co-authorship, which was your claim.
>>
>> My wife and I often discuss our respective software projects, including
>> brainstorming problems etc., but I doubt either of us would find it easy
>> if suddenly expected to complete the other's code.  8-)
> 
> If you or your wife had picked the other's code, the finishing would
> be done in the style of the original author.  Right?

Oh, of course, and we'd probably be better at it than most; but I'm
fairly sure neither of us would be able to do it to a standard that the
other would regard as sufficiently like them.  (We have fairly different
coding styles.)

>>>> And note that, while the *copyright* was assigned to Terry and Lyn
>>>> Pratchett, the *authorship* is clearly established in a subsequent
>>>> paragraph (quoting from "The Fifth Elephant"):
>>>>
>>>>   Copyright (C) Terry and Lyn Pratchett 1999
>>>>   Discworld(R) is a trademark registered by Terry Pratchett
>>>>
>>>>   The right of Terry Pratchett to be identified as the author of this
>>>>   work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
>>>>   Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
>>>
>>> Your copyright is worded differently than the ones I read over here (USA).
>>
>> That doesn't surprise me; references to a UK Act of Parliament would
>> probably be met with a degree of confusion over there!  I would have
>> expected a similar assertion of authorship in the US version; but
>> perhaps you don't have an applicable law on which to hang such a thing.
> 
> Copyright pages have been changing over the last (est.) 10 years.  Some
> lines of the copyright are a mystery to me.

Yup.  I suspect lawyers are to blame.

>>>> If Lyn had been a co-author, as you claim, surely that would have been
>>>> "The rights of Terry and Lyn Pratchett to be identified as the authors
>>>> of this work..."?
>>>
>>> I didnt' intend to imply that she was the author.
>>
>> You explicitly claimed (see above) that "his wife was a co-author" of
>> The Fifth Elephant.  It was that erroneous claim that I was correcting.
> 
> Oh, now I understand the objection.  Yes, I had assumed that there
> was co-authorship because of the copyright.
>>
>>> She must know enough about his work and style to be able to pick up
>>> unfinished work, finish it, and publish post-mortem.
>>
>> Possibly, although I suspect his long-time assistant Rob Wilkins (a)
>> knew infinitely more about his work and writing style, and (b) would
>> have been the one to do any final tidying etc.
> 
> Or they both did it.  Didn't one of the later publications have a second
> author listed on the cover?  Perhaps the Long Earth series?

He had done a few joint projects with other authors (e.g. "Good Omens"
with Neil Gaiman in 1990), and the more recent "Long Earth" series was
indeed a joint venture with Stephen Baxter (a well-established sci-fi
author in his own right).  I don't know whether the attraction of
working with another author on a new venture was related to Pratchett's
PCA, or whether it just seemed like a fun idea to work jointly with a
"proper" sci-fi author.

>> But given that the book is out now, and Sir Terry died less than six
>> months ago, it's probably all his own work; reportedly it was completed
>> in mid-2014.
>>
>> Interestingly, he said that he would be happy for his daughter Rhianna
>> (who, unlike his wife Lyn, is a writer) to continue the Discworld
>> series; but she has said she will not do so.
> 
> I read about that.  Maybe she will change her mind in a couple of decades.

Who knows?  But she's been fairly unequivocal about Discworld being her
father's exclusive domain; I really hope she doesn't get lured down that
path.

> She may not want to because of the style of humor her father had.  People
> would be disappointed

I'm sure they would be.

> (similar to the disappointment of the book which just came out about
> Atticus Finch who was a character in _To Kill A Mockingbird_).

I'm aware of the new Harper Lee book, but know nothing about it (I
haven't read "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- an oversight I should probably
remedy at some point -- so news of the "sequel" had little effect on
me).

> I'm reading _Only Human_ by Tom Holt; the author has almost a similar
> type of humor as Pratchett.

I hadn't come across Tom Holt before; sounds interesting.

[...]

> I apologize for flying off.  I've been too used to having each and every
> one of my posts attacked.  It's almost become a habit to drop into
> defense mode.

That's what I thought, and I understand; but try not to!

You do have a fairly, um, forthright style at the best of times -- which
is not necessarily a bad thing, but that combined with not verifying
your assumptions before committing yourself to statements portrayed as
certainties, which may later turn out to be mistaken, provides
low-hanging fruit for the attackers.

If you can't do the research (e.g. due to lack of web access), perhaps
trying to indicate areas where you are not 100% certain (e.g. "I would
have thought his Alzheimer's would have been affecting him in 2002", or
use of "AIUI" etc.) might be worth considering.  I know it's not your
normal style, but...

I come from a family where we're all completely certain that we're
right, even on subjects we know precious little about; it makes for
entertaining discussions at home, especially when everyone has opposing
views -- and it seems to be almost the norm in academia IME -- but it
isn't always the best way to approach Real Life (a lesson I'm still
trying to teach myself, which I suspect will be a lifetime's work).

>> But you didn't do that; instead you went on the offensive, ignoring the
>> correction and attempting to justify your stance by stating (not
>> hypothesising, but baldly stating as apparent fact) that "he would have
>> started to suffer from mental breakdowns" by 2002, which had no factual
>> basis and was utterly wrong in many different ways.
>>
>> This is something you frequently seem to do: jump to conclusions about
>> things you don't actually know all that much about, without doing any
>> research to check your underlying assumptions, then state those
>> hypotheses as though they were facts.  It plays right into the hands of
>> your detractors, and is something you should really try to stop doing.
>> IMHO.
>>
> 
> Well, I do know about leaving the kudos to the male even though a lot
> of the real work was done by the female.  :-)  I'm not, in any way,
> stating that's how the Pratchetts worked.

8-)

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151003

On 2015-09-03, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:

[184 lines snipped]

>> (similar to the disappointment of the book which just came out about
>> Atticus Finch who was a character in _To Kill A Mockingbird_).
>
> I'm aware of the new Harper Lee book, but know nothing about it (I
> haven't read "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- an oversight I should probably
> remedy at some point -- so news of the "sequel" had little effect on
> me).

"Go Set a Watchman" was written *before* "To Kill A Mockingbird". Harper
Lee decided not to publish it at the time, so it's not really "new".

[14 lines snipped]

> You do have a fairly, um, forthright style at the best of times -- which
> is not necessarily a bad thing, but that combined with not verifying
> your assumptions before committing yourself to statements portrayed as
> certainties, which may later turn out to be mistaken, provides
> low-hanging fruit for the attackers.

It's hardly "attacking" when Babs presents obvious nonsense as inerrant
truth, which she pretty routinely does.

-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 27th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151012

On 2015-09-03, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-09-03, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [184 lines snipped]
>
>>> (similar to the disappointment of the book which just came out about
>>> Atticus Finch who was a character in _To Kill A Mockingbird_).
>>
>> I'm aware of the new Harper Lee book, but know nothing about it (I
>> haven't read "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- an oversight I should probably
>> remedy at some point -- so news of the "sequel" had little effect on
>> me).
>
> "Go Set a Watchman" was written *before* "To Kill A Mockingbird". Harper
> Lee decided not to publish it at the time, so it's not really "new".
>
> [14 lines snipped]
>
>> You do have a fairly, um, forthright style at the best of times -- which
>> is not necessarily a bad thing, but that combined with not verifying
>> your assumptions before committing yourself to statements portrayed as
>> certainties, which may later turn out to be mistaken, provides
>> low-hanging fruit for the attackers.
>
> It's hardly "attacking" when Babs presents obvious nonsense as inerrant
> truth, which she pretty routinely does.
>

My daughter endure a queue in Dublin to buy "The Shepherd Queen"(sp?)
and got a message from Aberdeen about the long queus there.  I fell asleep
during reading it. Sad.


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151022

On 2015-09-03, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-09-03, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2015-09-03, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [184 lines snipped]
>>
>>>> (similar to the disappointment of the book which just came out about
>>>> Atticus Finch who was a character in _To Kill A Mockingbird_).
>>>
>>> I'm aware of the new Harper Lee book, but know nothing about it (I
>>> haven't read "To Kill A Mockingbird" -- an oversight I should probably
>>> remedy at some point -- so news of the "sequel" had little effect on
>>> me).
>>
>> "Go Set a Watchman" was written *before* "To Kill A Mockingbird". Harper
>> Lee decided not to publish it at the time, so it's not really "new".

[12 lines snipped]

> My daughter endure a queue in Dublin to buy "The Shepherd Queen"(sp?)
> and got a message from Aberdeen about the long queus there.  I fell asleep
> during reading it. Sad.

Pratchett's books got darker and darker as his disease progressed. I gave
up half way through "Raising Steam" because some vital spark was missing. I
shall probably buy "The Shepherd Queen" through some weird sense of loyalty,
but I'm not expecting it to be great.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 27th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151078

On 3 Sep, in article <slrnmug78q.v5.mausg@dmaus.org>
     mausg@mail.com wrote:

> My daughter endure a queue in Dublin to buy "The Shepherd Queen"(sp?)
> and got a message from Aberdeen about the long queus there.  I fell asleep
> during reading it. Sad.

Sad indeed; I know his style changed a bit towards the end (which Huge
alluded to elsethread).  I'll see how I find it once I've finished
Cryptonomicon, which looks like being a way off yet...

"The Shepherd's Crown", BTW.

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151083

On 2015-09-04, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 3 Sep, in article <slrnmug78q.v5.mausg@dmaus.org>
>      mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> My daughter endure a queue in Dublin to buy "The Shepherd Queen"(sp?)
>> and got a message from Aberdeen about the long queus there.  I fell asleep
>> during reading it. Sad.
>
> Sad indeed; I know his style changed a bit towards the end (which Huge
> alluded to elsethread).  I'll see how I find it once I've finished
> Cryptonomicon, which looks like being a way off yet...

If you're struggling with Cryptonomicon, don't bother with Anathem, which
was way, way, w-a-a-a-a-a-a-y too long, and not very original.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151249

On Fri, 2015-09-04, Huge wrote:
> On 2015-09-04, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 3 Sep, in article <slrnmug78q.v5.mausg@dmaus.org>
>>      mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My daughter endure a queue in Dublin to buy "The Shepherd Queen"(sp?)
>>> and got a message from Aberdeen about the long queus there.  I fell asleep
>>> during reading it. Sad.
>>
>> Sad indeed; I know his style changed a bit towards the end (which Huge
>> alluded to elsethread).  I'll see how I find it once I've finished
>> Cryptonomicon, which looks like being a way off yet...
>
> If you're struggling with Cryptonomicon, don't bother with Anathem, which
> was way, way, w-a-a-a-a-a-a-y too long, and not very original.

IMO Anathem was fairly readable despite its length, but it felt rather
empty. Empty calories, or something ...

I can happily recommend /The Diamond Age/ though. There's a lot to
think about in that book.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web